Forest Management
Test Evaluation Report
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest
in
Wisconsin, USA
Report Finalized: June 22, 2007
Test Evaluation Date: October 30-November 4, 2006
Test Evaluation Team:
Dan Pubanz, Lead Auditor & Forester
Don Taylor, Forester, Co-Leader
Stephen Grado, Socio-Economist
Kevin Russell, Wildlife Biologist
John Kotar, Forest Ecologist
Operation Contact: Geoff Chandler
Address: Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
68 S. Stevens Street
Rhinelander, WI 54501
Test Evaluation
Performed by:
SmartWood US Region
101 East Fifth Street, Suite 208
Northfield, MN 55057
Tel: 507.663.1115
Fax: 507.663.7771
Contact person: Dave Bubser
dbubser@ra.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.
SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 6
1.1.
1.2.
2.
TEST EVALUATION PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
3.
STANDARD USED FOR THE TEST EVALUATION .............................................................................. 7
TEST EVALUATION TEAM AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 8
REPORT PEER REVIEWERS ............................................................................................................. 8
TEST EVALUATION SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 9
EVALUATION STRATEGY ................................................................................................................ 10
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS ................................................................................... 11
TEST EVALUATION FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS.............................................................. 14
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.
SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 6
EXCLUSION OF AREAS FROM THE SCOPE OF EVALUATION............................................................ 6
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS RECEIVED ......................................................................................... 14
MAIN STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES .......................................................................................... 18
IDENTIFIED NON-COMPLIANCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS....................................................... 23
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE STANDARD USED IN THE TEST EVALUATION .... 25
OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 25
TEST EVALUATION SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 27
CLIENT SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................... 28
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
OWNERSHIP AND LAND TENURE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 28
LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENT REGULATORY CONTEXT .......................................................... 28
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 29
SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX I: FSC Reporting Form: Detailed FMO information.......................................................... 32
APPENDIX II: Public summary of the management plan...................................................................... 35
APPENDIX III: Test evaluation standard conformance checklist (confidential) ................................. 37
APPENDIX IV: Chain of Custody Standard Conformance Checklist (confidential)......................... 138
APPENDIX VI: List of all visited sites (confidential) ............................................................................. 141
APPENDIX VII: Detailed list of stakeholders consulted (confidential)............................................... 145
APPENDIX VIII: Peer review addenda (confidential)........................................................................... 189
APPENDIX IX: SmartWood Additional Considerations ....................................................................... 197
APPENDIX X: FMO map .......................................................................................................................... 200
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 2 of 200
ACRONYMS
AAC
ADR
ANF
ARPA
ASQ
ATV
USDA
BMPs
CARs
CE
CITES
CBD
CCC
CDS
CoC
CNNF
DNR
DOD
DOE
EA
EIS
ELT
EOEA
FAR
FEIS
FIA
FMO
FMU
FOIA
FSC
FSH
FSM
FSV
GIS
GLIFWC
HCVF
HRV
ILO
IPM
IRPG
JHA
LRMP
MIH
MIS
MSDS
MUTCD
NEPA
NFFE
Annual Allowable Cut
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Allegheny National Forest
Archaeological Resource Protection Act
Allowable Sale Quantity
All-terrain Vehicle
United States Department of Agriculture
Best Management Practices
Corrective Action Requests
Categorical Exclusion
Convention on Trade in Endangered Species
Convention on Biological Diversity
Civilian Conservation Corps
Combined Data System
Chain-of-Custody
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Ecological Land Types
Equal Opportunity Employment Act
Federal Acquisition Regulation
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Inventory and Analysis
Forest Management Organization
Forest Management Unit
Freedom of Information Act
Forest Stewardship Council
Forest Service Handbook
Forest Service Manual
Field Sampled Vegetation
Geographic Information System
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
High Conservation Value Forest
Historic Range of Variability
International Labour Organization
Integrated Pest Management
Incident Response Pocket Guides
Job Hazard Analysis
Land and Resource Management Plan
Management Indicator Habitats
Management Indicator Species
Material Safety Data Sheets
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
National Environmental Policy Act
National Federation of Federal Employees
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 3 of 200
NFMA
NNFBS
NNIS
NTFP
NVUM
OBS
OGM
ORV
OSHA
OWCP
P&C
PIC
PILT
PPE
PU
PwC
RFSS
ROPS
RT&E
SFI
SHPO
SRSCS
SMZs
SW
USDA
USFS
USFWS
WDNR
National Forest Management Act
Nicolet National Forest Bird Survey
Non-native Invasive Species
Non-timber Forest Products
National Visitor Use Monitoring
Observation
Oil and Gas Management
Off Road Vehicle
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Workers Compensation
Principles and Criteria of the FSC
Pinchot Institute for Conservation
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Personal protective equipment
Purchase Unit
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Regional Forest Sensitive Species
Regional Operation Program
Rare, threatened, and endangered
Sustainable Forestry Initiative
State Historic Preservation Officer
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
Streamside Management Zones
SmartWood
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Forest Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Standard Conversions
1 acre = 0.405 hectares
1 foot = 0.3048 Meters
1 mile = 1.60934 Kilometers
1 mbf = 5.1 m3
1 cord = 2.55 m3
1 Gallon (US) = 3.78541 Liters
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 4 of 200
INTRODUCTION
The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF), in northern Wisconsin, USA, is participating in a test
evaluation of the applicability of third party forest certification on United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service lands. This independent study was initiated by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation
(PIC). The study will provide a test evaluation of current management on the national forests of the United
States with respect to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) regional standards and the SmartWood (SW)
forest management evaluation processes. The project will include case studies on five forests within the
National Forest System, including the CNNF.
This case study of the CNNF began with a test pre-evaluation. The test pre-evaluation was conducted to
prepare both the CNNF and SmartWood for a full test evaluation. The focus of the test pre-evaluation was
on general orientation, document and procedural reviews, and logistical planning for the test forest
management evaluation. This test pre-evaluation also included a concise, preliminary determination of
readiness to advance to the full test evaluation. Subsequent to the test pre-evaluation, a full test evaluation
was carried out by the SmartWood Program to determine if the CNNF management meets the requirements
of the SmartWood program and the FSC certification standards. In addition, to the test evaluation by
SmartWood, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is conducting a parallel test evaluation of the CNNF using the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standards and auditing system. These two test evaluations have been
completed concurrently with a single, merged audit team.
This report presents the findings of an independent test evaluation conducted by a team of specialists
representing the SmartWood Program of the Rainforest Alliance. The purpose of the test evaluation was to
assess the ecological, economic and social sustainability of CNNF forest management using standards
defined by the FSC. Specifically, this test evaluation has been conducted using FSC Lake States Regional
Standards, FSC-U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of Energy (DOE) Standards and Additional
Considerations developed by SmartWood specifically for the CNNF test evaluation.
This report contains four main sections of information and findings and several appendixes. The entire report
plus Appendices I and II will become public information about the forest management operation that may be
distributed by SmartWood to interested parties. The remainder of the appendices are confidential, to be
reviewed only by authorized SmartWood staff and reviewers bound by confidentiality agreements.
The purpose of the SmartWood Program is to recognize conscientious land stewardship through
independent evaluation of forestry practices.
As a test evaluation, and because the USDA Forest Service has not met the prerequisites of the FSC-US
Federal Lands Policy for pursuing FSC certification in the United States, the findings contained in this report
are not determinations of conformance with FSC requirements as would be reported for a landowner
qualified to seek certification under the FSC program. The USDA Forest Service and any other party may
not: (a) use the names, logos, seals, certification marks or trademarks, or evaluation systems or procedures,
of the contracting firm(s) or the FSC certification program for any purpose whatsoever, including, without
limitation, the marketing, sale or promotion of any forest products; or (b), make any claim of conformity or
near conformity with FSC requirements or any portion thereof, or any other operation, until and unless a
certificate is awarded by an FSC accredited firm subject to a qualified FSC certification assessment.
FSC certification is explicitly outside the scope of this project.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 5 of 200
1. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
1.1.
Scope of the evaluation
The following text was modified from the Preface of the CNNF Final Environmental Impact Statement
(2004):
The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests cover 1,522,485 acres in Wisconsin’s
‘North Woods’. Since 1993, the two Forests have been administered as one unit
and the forest plan revision process has been accomplished jointly.
Both Forests were established by Presidential proclamation in 1933 and were
originally made up of largely abandoned and tax delinquent land that was acquired
by the Federal Government under the authority of the Weeks Act of 1911. The
Forests’ boundaries encompass National Forest System (NFS) lands within 11
different Wisconsin Counties: Ashland, Bayfield, Florence, Forest, Langlade,
Oconto, Oneida, Price, Sawyer, Taylor, and Vilas.
There are five Ranger Districts on the Forests. Three of the Ranger Districts—Great
Divide (384,000 acres), Medford-Park Falls (282,000 acres), and Washburn
(205,000 acres)—are on the Chequamegon land base of the Forests. On the
Nicolet land base there are two Ranger Districts: Lakewood-Laona (354,000 acres)
and Eagle River-Florence (330,000 acres). Each Ranger District maintains an office
in the communities with which they share their names except Great Divide, which
has offices in the communities of Glidden and Hayward. The Argonne Experimental
Forest and Oconto River Seed Orchard are also found on the Nicolet land base.
The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests are composed of four separate
contiguous ownership units: the Medford Ranger District, the Park Falls Ranger
District, the Washburn/Great Divide Ranger Districts, and the entire land base of the
Nicolet National Forest. The two largest units—the Nicolet National Forest and the
Washburn and Great Divide Districts of the Chequamegon—are 662,000 and
576,000 acres, respectively. Private parcels of land are scattered within the
boundaries of the National Forests. Multiple Use management leads to a multitude
of goods and services provided by the Forests. Opportunities are provided for
motorized and non-motorized recreation. Dozens of campgrounds provide
opportunities for lakeside recreation. Many more lakes and rivers are accessible at
boat and canoe landings. Sub-surface mineral extraction is currently not occurring,
although there is the potential for mineral resource extraction to occur on CNNF
lands. A diverse range of forest products, including non-timber forest products (e.g.,
balsam boughs, club moss), game, recreation, and timber products, are important to
local culture and the economy.
See more detailed information about the FMO and areas covered by the certificate in Appendices I and II.
1.2.
Exclusion of areas from the scope of evaluation
CNNF did not exclude any areas under its management from the scope of the test evaluation.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 6 of 200
2. TEST EVALUATION PROCESS
2.1.
Standard Used for the Test Evaluation
The test evaluation was carried out using an integrated standard developed specifically for this project. This
integrated standard is comprised of: 1) the applicable FSC regional standard; 2) the FSC-U.S. Indicators for
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) forests; and, 3) a set of “Additional
Considerations” that were developed by SmartWood as a distinct element of this test evaluation. The FSC
Regional Forest stewardship standard was merged with the FSC-US DOD/DOE standard and the 19
“Additional Considerations” to form a single standard. This merged standard was used by the
SmartWood/PwC test evaluation team and is provided in Appendix III of this report.
The applicable FSC regional standard is the Final Lake States-Central Hardwoods (USA) Regional Forest
Stewardship Standard (Version LS V3.0, dated February 10, 2005). These indicators are used to evaluate
all forest management operations attempting to achieve FSC Forest Management certification in the Lake
States and Central Hardwood Region of the US. Indicators that are associated with the FSC Lake States
Region and Central Hardwood Region standards are listed throughout the report in outline fashion without a
prefix (e.g. 1.3.a, 6.3.a.4, etc.). For The Lake States Central Hardwood region, indicators 4.4.e, 5.6.a, 6.2.a,
and criterion 6.4 are considered fatal flaws. This means failure to meet these indicators or criterion will
preclude a determination of conformance with the standard.
The FSC-U.S. Indicators for U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) forests
(draft, dated February 25, 2003) used in the test evaluation are currently the only FSC certification standards
approved for federal lands in the United States. The FSC-U.S. Indicators for U.S. Department of Defense
and Department of Energy are identified in this report with the letters “DOD/DOE” (e.g. 6.3.b. DOD/DOE 1).
The DOD/DOE Indicators were developed in conjunction with the FSC-U.S. Policy on Federal Lands, which
was adopted by the FSC U.S. Board of Directors on February 25th, 2003. In the U.S., federally-owned
forestlands must first meet the threshold standards of the FSC-U.S. Federal Lands Policy before certification
can proceed. At this time, U.S. National Forests have not met the FSC-U.S. Federal Lands Policy and
standards specific to the USDA National Forest System have not yet been developed by the FSC. The
DOD/DOE indicators are included in this test evaluation at the request of The Pinchot Institute for
Conservation and the U.S. Forest Service.
A total of 19 “Additional Considerations” have been developed to address any existing gaps in the standards
relative to the unique aspects of the forest management of the CNNF. These special concerns relate to
perceived limitations of the FSC standards [FSC Lake States and Central Hardwood Region Standards and
FSC DOD/DOE standards] for evaluating CNNF forest management operations. Additional Considerations
for the CNNF were developed through a process that began with the adoption of 17 Additional
Considerations used in June 2006 for a similar test evaluation of the Allegheny National Forest (ANF) in
Pennsylvania. In order to tailor these Additional Considerations to fit the CNNF, an expert panel of six
regional resource professionals was asked to provide comment on the 17 draft Additional Considerations
used for the ANF test evaluation, and also to identify any existing gaps in the standards relative to the
unique aspects of the forest management of the CNNF. As a result of this cumulative process, 10 Draft
(ANF) Additional Considerations were modified, one was deleted and three new Additional Considerations
were identified resulting in 19 CNNF Additional Considerations. The Additional Considerations that were
developed specifically for this project are identified with the prefix “AC” (e.g. AC 6.3.b.1).
The revised draft CNNF Additional Considerations were then provided to a broader group of targeted
stakeholders in October 2006. Stakeholders were asked through a questionnaire to first identify key issues
relating to the management of the CNNF, and then to provide input on the applicability and adequacy of the
FSC standards to address any considerations that are unique to the National Forest System. These special
concerns relate to perceived limitations of the FSC standards [FSC Lake States and Central Hardwood
Region Standards and FSC DOD/DOE standards] for evaluating CNNF forest management operations.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 7 of 200
SmartWood compiled all input received as described above and evaluated these special concerns to
determine whether they should be used as Additional Considerations for the CNNF. Draft Additional
Considerations were then subjected to an internal review by SmartWood staff and the SmartWood auditors.
SmartWood evaluated CNNF’s performance against these “Additional Considerations” in a manner identical
to that for all other indicators included in the test evaluation with the exception that Corrective Action
Requests (CARs) were not issued for “Additional Considerations.
2.2.
Test Evaluation team and qualifications
Dan M. Pubanz (SmartWood Lead Auditor): M.S. (1988) and B.S. (1985) in Forestry, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Consulting forester since 2003. Additionally, 16 years of experience in public land
management with responsibility for all pre-harvest activity on a 250,000-acre landbase in Wisconsin, which
was FSC-certified for 10 years. Experienced in silviculture, private and public land management issues,
FMP development, and forest management planning. Since 1999, extensive experience in FSC auditing of
businesses, forest management organizations, and public lands in the Midwest and Northeast US;
performed over 40 FSC audits or assessments, eight as Team Leader.
Donald R. Taylor, CF (PricewaterhouseCoopers Lead Auditor): SAF Certified Forester, Senior
consultant and lead auditor for PwC, based out of Greenville, South Carolina. M.S. in forestry and MBA.
Thirty years of field experience; has led numerous SFI audits for PWC for clients such as American Tree
Farm System, Georgia Pacific, Boise, Forest Investment Associates, John Hancock Timber Resource
Group, Plum Creek Timber Company, Willamette Industries, Westvaco, and the Stimson Lumber Company.
Certified ISO 14001 EMS lead auditor. Prior to this work he worked for two major forest products companies
as an operations manager, forester and vice president.
Stephen C. Grado, PhD, CF/CFA (Socio-economist): SAF Certified Forester/Certified Forest Auditor,
Fellow Professor. Education: PhD in Forest Resources 1992, MS in Forest Resources and Operations
Research 1984, BS in Forest Science 1979, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA; BA
Political Science, Villanova University, Philadelphia, PA. Experience: Professor, Mississippi State University
Department of Forestry; Society of American Foresters Certified Forester and Certified Forest Auditor. Dr.
Grado has served as social assessor on 12 SmartWood pre-assessments and assessments, as an auditor
for several forest management and chain-of-custody audits/assessments, and has also served as a peer
reviewer of FSC certification reports. He also served as a member of a forest project monitoring team
auditing under SFI standards.
Kevin R. Russell, Ph.D. (Wildlife Ecologist) – Certified Wildlife Biologist, Professor. Education: Ph.D. in
Forest Wildlife Ecology in 2000 and MS in Zoology 1996 Clemson University, BS in Zoology 1991 University
of Idaho. Experience: 14 years as a wildlife researcher and manager. Current position is Professor,
University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. Prior to this position he worked as a wildlife research biologist and
manager for a major forest products company in Oregon. Dr. Russell has served as the wildlife ecologist on
several SmartWood forest management assessments and also has served as an assessment peer reviewer.
John Kotar, PhD (Forest Ecologist): Senior Research Scientist, Department of Forest Ecology and
Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison (since 1986). Ph.D. forest ecology 1972, University of
Washington; assistant professor, ecologist/silviculturist, Department of Forestry, Michigan Technological
University (1979-86); assistant professor, plant ecology, Department of Biology, University of MinnesotaDuluth (1972-79). SAF Certified Forester 2002.
2.3.
Report peer reviewers
Lee Frelich, Ph.D. Education: Ph.D. in Forestry, 1986, specialty Forest Ecology, minor in applied statistics,
University of Wisconsin-Madison; B.S. in Bacteriology, 1980; B.S. in Botany, 1979. Experience: Research
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 8 of 200
Associate, University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, College of Natural Resources; Senior
Member of the Graduate Faculty in Forestry, Ecology, and Conservation Biology Programs; Director, The
University of Minnesota Center for Hardwood Ecology. Areas of expertise include: biodiversity and forest
management; boreal forest dynamics; disturbance ecology; ecosystem management in forests; hardwood
forests (oak and maple); modeling of growth and dynamics of vegetation and landscapes; and, old growth
forest and natural area evaluation, restoration and management.
Donald W. Floyd, Ph.D. Education: Ph.D. Renewable Natural Resources, 1988, University of Arizona;
M.S. Environmental Communication, 1976, University of Wisconsin-Madison; B.A. Journalism, Humboldt
State University 1974. Experience: Professor of Forest Policy and Chair, Canadian Institute for Forest
Policy and Communication, University of New Brunswick. Fellow, Society of American Foresters. CoEditor, Journal of Forestry. Areas of expertise include forest policy, public participation and environmental
communication.
2.4.
Test Evaluation schedule
Date
General Location*
(main sites)
Main activities
September 13-14,
2006
September-October,
2006
August – October,
2006
CNNF Rhinelander
Supervisor’s Office
Email, phone
Informational session by SW / PwC for CNNF staff;
Test Pre-evaluation
Email
September 28, 2006,
October 2, 2006
October 4, 2006
Website, email, mail
Development of 19 Additional Considerations
through formalized consultation with SmartWood
auditors; a panel of six regional natural resource
experts; and targeted stakeholders. Input
provided through these consultative measures
was reviewed by SmartWood staff to finalize the
Additional Considerations.
Public briefing notice posted on the SmartWood
website and distributed to several hundred local,
regional and national stakeholders via email and
postcards.
September 28, 2006
October 4, 2006
October 29, 2006
October 30, 2006
Email, mail
Stakeholder mail survey sent to CNNF employees and
other stakeholders.
Rhinelander, WI hotel
Eagle River-Florence District
Office
Eagle River-Florence District
Lakewood-Laona District
Rhinelander Supervisor’s
Office
Rhinelander Holiday Inn
Medford-Park Falls District
Park Falls Supervisor’s Office
Great Divide District
Northern Great Lakes Visitor’s
Center
Washburn District
Ashland, WI hotel
Northern Great Lakes Visitor’s
Center
Test evaluation team meeting
Introductory meeting, review of evaluation
process, final planning for field visits, office visits
Site visits/field evaluations
Site visits/field evaluations
Office visits
October 30, 2006
October 31, 2006
October 31, 2006
October 31, 2006
November 1, 2006
November 1, 2006
November 2, 2006
November 2, 2006
November 3, 2006
November 4, 2006
November 4, 2006
November, 2006
E-mail, mail, phone
Test evaluation planning; field site selection
Public meeting/stakeholder consultation
Site visits/field evaluations
Office visits
Site visits/field evaluations
Office visits/staff interviews; public
meeting/stakeholder consultation
Site visits/field evaluations
Test evaluation team meeting
Closing meeting with CNNF staff; debriefing on
preliminary findings
Stakeholder consultation
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 9 of 200
Total number of person-days used for the test evaluation: 47.5 days.
* Detail on sites visited provided in Appendix VI.
2.5.
Evaluation strategy
This project began with a test pre-evaluation, as detailed in a report entitled “Forest Management Test
Pre-Evaluation Report for: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest,” draft submitted to CNNF on October 9,
2006. During this session, the lead auditors from SW and PwC and the SmartWood U.S. Region Manager
(Dave Bubser) conducted an informational orientation session for CNNF staff members focused on
describing the project and reviewing processes and procedures for the test evaluation. This session was
attended by 11 CNNF staff from the Supervisor’s Office.
From mid-September to mid-October, 2006, the SW Lead Auditor worked with the CNNF Natural
Resources Group Leader and the CNNF Forest Silviculturist on selecting the site visit locations, to include
both vegetation (i.e., timber) management and other management activities on each District of the Forest.
For timber sales, the sample set was based on open timber sales, of which there were 97 across the
Forest. Open sales were used in order to evaluate CNNF’s most current management strategies and
practices. These sales were covered by project analyses dating between 1996 and 2004. Most harvest
activity within these sales has occurred over the past five years. No sales have been conducted under the
2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).
CNNF was asked to include the following information for each of these sale units: District, Management
Area, silvicultural system, planting, presence of aquatic/cultural/RT&E/RFSS resources, soil types, active
harvest operations, and recreation trails. From this list, the SW Lead Auditor selected 24 timber sales that
contained a range of silvicultural systems (especially including even-aged management) and the presence
of aquatic/cultural/RTE resources. Samples were determined for every District. After discussions with
CNNF staff, this list was further refined to be logistically feasible (i.e., sites were accessible within the
timeframe of the test evaluation) and included the final 17 sales used for the test evaluation. Within the 17
sales, 31 purchase units (different operational units) were evaluated.
CNNF supplied a listing of non-timber projects that had been conducted over the previous three years,
which included over 110 separate projects. The SW Lead Auditor and CNNF staff developed the site visit
list (n=25) to include wildlife, fisheries, non-native invasive species (NNIS), trails, cultural resources, and
prescribed burn projects that were feasible to visit during the evaluation period.
At each timber sale purchase unit visited, discussions were conducted either individually or as a group
with the CNNF staff members responsible for implementing the management activity at that site (such as
the District silviculturist, sale administrator, and lead marker). Where necessary, CNNF non-timber
resource specialists were consulted on site. At non-timber sites, discussions were conducted with
appropriate District specialists. Both District staff and Supervisor’s Office staff were present at each site,
which often totaled in excess of a dozen people. Additionally, observers from the USDA Forest Service’s
national and regional offices, the PIC, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources were also
present. High-risk areas within purchase units were specifically visited to evaluate the effectiveness of
mitigation measures. Additionally, when traveling between sites, auditors continued to discuss issues
related to the Standard with CNNF staff. At the end of each day, the SW/PwC team summarized the site
visits and presented initial findings on strengths and weaknesses relative to the Standard to the CNNF
staff that were present in the field.
The SW and PwC Lead Auditors worked in the field throughout the evaluation, with the exception of time
spent reviewing GIS and forest inventory systems in the office. The forest ecologist or the wildlife
ecologist, or both, were present in the field during the evaluation with the exception of November 1. This
gap was due simply to the need to schedule two people while reducing travel time to the Forest. The
social assessor spent 1.5 days in the field and the remainder of the time at various offices working directly
with CNNF staff to learn about worker relations and various other elements of the management system.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 10 of 200
List of management aspects reviewed by test evaluation team:
Type of site
Planned harvest site
Active harvest site
Completed harvest site
Thinning/selection
Shelterwood
Clearcut
Salvage
Special management area
Endangered species
Non-native species control
Prescribed burn
Chemical use
Landings
2.6.
Sites
visited
7
3
19
14
3
3
7
5
2
3
6
1
22
Type of site
Skid trails
Boundary lines
Borrow pits
Hiking trails
Forest roads (old/new)
Road construction
Riparian buffer zone
Wetlands
Wildlife management
Forest road/stream crossing
ATV trail (designated)
Recreational site
Buffer zone
Sites
visited
29
4
2
3
15+
4
5
9
14
4+
2
7
6
Stakeholder consultation process
Stakeholder consultation was used to supplement information relative to CNNF’s performance with
respect to the FSC Lake States and Central Hardwood Region Standards combined with the FSC US
DOD/DOE federal land indicators and the Additional Considerations used in the test evaluation. It was
also used as an effective means to identify difficult or controversial forest stewardship issues and gain an
understanding of how stakeholders believe issues should be resolved. Stakeholder consultation occurred
prior to, during, and after the on-site visit.
Prior to the test evaluation, provisional “Additional Considerations” were submitted to an expert panel of
six individuals with regional expertise in a range of natural resource disciplines. This expert panel was
asked to review and comment on the provisional Additional Considerations. Input provided by the expert
panel was meaningful and robust. Following the consultations with the expert panel, SmartWood
developed an ‘Additional Considerations” questionnaire designed to solicit input from targeted
stakeholders regarding the applicability, and any perceived limitations unique to the USDA Forest Service
and CNNF operating environment, relative to the FSC standards being used. This questionnaire was
distributed in October 2006 to 104 individuals known or expected to have significant knowledge and
interest in the forest management of CNNF and/or of national forests in general. These stakeholders
represent a diverse group with a local and regional bias but also include several key national
organizations. Stakeholders were asked to identify 3 – 5 key issues on the CNNF and then to indicate
whether these key issues are adequately addressed by the FSC regional standards, combined with the
FSC DOD/DOE standards and the proposed Additional Considerations. Two questionnaires were returned
for a response rate of 2%. Comments from this effort were considered in the development and revision of
“Additional Considerations”. These Additional Considerations were incorporated into the test evaluation
report and evaluated as indicators.
During the test pre-evaluation meeting, the SmartWood lead auditor discussed the stakeholder consultation
process with CNNF staff. An overview was given by the auditor on the use of stakeholder consultations within
the full evaluation process. The purpose of stakeholder consultation is threefold: 1) to ensure that the public is
aware of and informed about the evaluation process and its objectives; 2) to assist the evaluation team in
identifying potential issues; and, 3) to provide diverse opportunities for the public to discuss and act upon the
findings of the evaluation. Stakeholder inputs were used as supporting evidence or verification during the
evaluation process, to provide the evaluation team with additional perspectives on the CNNF forest
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 11 of 200
management, and to point toward issues that need further exploration. In the test evaluation report,
stakeholder inputs will be used in: 1) findings; 2) a table summarizing stakeholder comments received; and 3)
the confidential Appendices on stakeholder contact and the nature of the consultations (e.g., on-site visit, onsite interview, mail survey, stakeholder meetings, e-mail notification, telephone interview).
Prior to, and during, the test pre-evaluation, the team requested CNNF to provide electronic lists (i.e., names
and addresses, names and e-mail addresses) containing stakeholders from the following categories: federal,
state, county, and local government officials and employees; Native American Tribes and their representatives;
their forest plan mailing list; timber sale purchasers; construction contractors; forestry services contractors; and
adjacent landowners. After the pre-evaluation, auditors researched additional stakeholders that were added to
the contact list. In addition, SmartWood staff and the social assessor developed the stakeholder public notice,
and cover letter and mail-in survey used in the test evaluation. This public notice was reviewed, predistribution, by the CNNF, SmartWood, and PwC. The stakeholder list contained 481 entries. In addition,
CNNF developed an employee stakeholder list (n=264).
The stakeholder public notice, cover letter, and mail survey were distributed by mail in early October 2006.
All stakeholder lists were surveyed in their entirety with the exception of the CNNF’s Forest Plan list
(n=1,829), where a random sample of 183 individuals, agencies, and organizations were chosen.
SmartWood distributed a public briefing paper to 1,000 individuals, agencies, and organizations from the
Forest Plan list (separate from the 183 surveyed) prior to the test evaluation explaining the process. This
public notice was also posted on the SmartWood Web site (www.smartwood.org). The CNNF distributed
the public notice to their employees. The CNNF requested that they distribute the public notice, cover
letter, and survey to their own employees.
The mail survey questionnaire was delivered to all 481 entries on the stakeholder list plus all 264 CNNF
employee stakeholders (n=745). A total of 115 surveys were returned to the social assessor. The survey
return rate, after accounting for non-deliverables (n=33), was 16.2%. The responses received from this
survey are not considered to be representative of “public opinion” regarding the management of the
CNNF. Statements made, for example, in section 3.1 are representative only of the 150 stakeholders
surveyed and other stakeholders interviewed or providing input through other venues. The purpose of
stakeholder consultation measures undertaken within the context of third party forest auditing is to
evaluate conformance to the standards. Survey results were used as supplemental information, to identify
potential issues that may not have otherwise been discovered, or to reinforce observations made by the
auditors through other avenues of evidence gathering.
An attempt was made to enhance the process with two public stakeholder meetings which took place
during the team’s visit. One meeting was held from 6:30 – 8:30 PM on Tuesday night, October 31 at the
Holiday Inn in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. A second meeting was held from 6:30 – 8:30 PM on Thursday
night, November 2nd at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland, Wisconsin. The meetings
were advertised in the local newspapers and on radio. Stakeholder surveys and a sign-in sheet were
posted at the meeting entrance. The meetings were attended by 1 and 0 individuals, respectively. The
stakeholder input was summarized by the team and incorporated into the evaluation report.
During and after the test evaluation, the team also conducted meetings and individual interviews with
CNNF employees; contractors; peer organizations and businesses; local citizens and community
representatives; conservation organizations; neighboring landowners; and other interested or relevant
parties to ensure the test evaluation addressed stakeholder concerns and interests in the FMO’s
operations. Individual stakeholders were contacted either in person, over the telephone, or by e-mail. For
example, e-mail inquiries were made to mail survey respondents (n=33) who requested to be contacted by
the team.
Of the 264 CNNF employees contacted, three did not want to be listed in the appendix titled “List of FMO
Staff Consulted.” Of the 481 external stakeholders contacted via the mail survey, five did not want to be
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 12 of 200
listed in the appendix titled “List of other Stakeholders Consulted.” For the latter, one could not be found
on the stakeholder lists.
Stakeholder Type
(NGO, government bodies, local
inhabitant, contractor etc.)
Academics
Chambers of Commerce
CNNF employees
County Forestry Administrators
County Government
Federal agencies
Forest industry, consultants, and
contractors
Libraries
NGOs
Other industries
Politicians
Recreation-related
State Agencies
Towns
Tribal Interests
Unknown Stakeholdersa
Stakeholders
informed (#)
10
2
264
32
3
13
95
8
30
34
2
12
6
10
32
222
Stakeholders
consulted or
providing input (#)b
31
0
124
3
3
6
81
0
23
1
3
80
1
0
5
172
a
Most of these stakeholders were from the Forest Plan list and included landowners and private citizens not
owning land.
b
Stakeholders providing inputs included those directly identified through interviews and those who provided inputs
anonymously through the mail survey, thus leading to duplications. In many cases, stakeholders identified
themselves as belonging to more than one grouping. In some cases, inputs were greater than contacts because the
auditors received information many who were no on any contact list.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 13 of 200
3. TEST EVALUATION FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
3.1.
Stakeholder comments received
The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity to provide
comments according to general categories of interest based upon criteria used for the test evaluation. The
table below summarizes the issues identified by the test evaluation team with a brief discussion of each
based upon specific interview and/or public meeting comments.
For the sake of clarity and transparency, all references made to stakeholder survey results must be taken in
proper context. A total of 712 survey questionnaires were delivered to a wide range of stakeholders,
including CNNF employees. Of these 712 surveys delivered, a total of 115 responses were received. The
percentages reported in the table below, and throughout the report, express the corresponding proportion of
the 115 survey respondents. All surveys received have been collapsed into one population rather than
segregated by stakeholder category. Survey responses are not considered to be representative of the
broader public opinion on CNNF management or on any specific issue addressed by the questionnaire.
Rather these collective responses are viewed as representative of only the 115 individuals responding to the
survey. Survey results have been used by the SmartWood auditors to enhance their evaluation of
conformance to the forest management standards used for this test evaluation of CNNF.
FSC Principle
P1: FSC
Commitment and
Legal
Compliance
P2: Tenure & Use
Rights &
Responsibilities
Stakeholder comment
SmartWood response
1. Stakeholders were satisfied with
CNNF’s compliance with laws and
regulations. Responses from 115
stakeholders returning survey
questionnaires are consistent with
other stakeholder comments on
this issue (86% replying as
satisfied).
1. CNNF was found to be well aware
of pertinent laws and regulations
and took action to ensure
compliance. There was no evidence
of consistent, intentional noncompliance with laws and
regulations.
2. Stakeholders returning completed
survey questionnaires (115
returned of 712 delivered) were
generally satisfied with CNNF’s
measures to prevent illegal and
unauthorized activities in the
forest. (69 -76% satisfied).
However, satisfaction with CNNF’s
law enforcement capability
dropped to 53% of those
responding, primarily due to
dissatisfaction with enforcement of
ATV regulations.
1. Recreational opportunities on the
CNNF are diverse enough to
appeal to a large number of
visitors. Two-thirds of the 115 mail
survey respondents were satisfied
with this activity. The NVUM also
verified visitor satisfaction. Tribal
contacts were satisfied with
hunting, fishing, and gathering
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
2. CNNF’s law enforcement
capabilities for their 1.5 million acre
landscape are limited. CNNF needs
to re-evaluate their ability to enforce
laws and regulations sufficient to
protect against resource damage
(CAR 2/06). The issues of both
proper and improper ATV/ORV use
will continue to require CNNF to
explore appropriate options for
future designation of non-motorized
and motorized recreational areas.
1.
The CNNF meets the FSC
standards with respect to providing
both customary recreational
opportunities and facilitating
customary forest uses (e.g.,
hunting, camping, hiking, tribal
rights, NTFP utilization). As an
example over 73% of survey
respondents were satisfied with
Page 14 of 200
rights on the CNNF.
2. No evidence was found, either
from CNNF interviews or through
stakeholder engagement (i.e.,
stakeholder meeting, on-site
interviews, mail or e-mail surveys),
that disputes of substantial
magnitude involving tenure and
use rights exist.
2.
Fifty-five percent of the 115 mail
survey respondents
expressed
dissatisfaction with management’s
handling of motorized access to
areas with road closures; 63%
expressed dissatisfaction with ATV
and other motorized recreational
use; and 72% were dissatisfied
with off highway vehicle use and
management. Dissatisfaction on
these issues was also expressed
through stakeholder interviews.
3.
3.
P3 – Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights
P4: Community
Relations &
Workers’ Rights
NTFP management.
1. Of the 115 stakeholders returning
survey questionnaires, 81% felt
that CNNF adequately addressed
historical and cultural issues
(satisfied with historical and
cultural issues related to site
detection, protection, public
access, and interpretation).
However, one Tribal
representative was concerned that
insufficient resources were
allocated to cultural resource
management.
2. Interviews with Tribal
representatives found that they
want a summarized version of
materials sent to the tribes along
with current materials. Tribal
contacts also want to see more
personal consultations with key
members on both sides
addressing common issues.
1. Several employees expressed
dissatisfaction and demoralization
with the introduction of “Enterprise
Teams”, where activities involved
with these groups were viewed as
time consuming, inefficient, and
insensitive to the current
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Claims of significant disputes with
the CNNF related to tenure or use
rights were found to be minimal as
expressed by the CNNF and
through stakeholder consultations.
Boundary line issues do occur, but
they are addressed appropriately
and in a timely manner.
It was apparent that there is a
problem here, with there being a
near even split on this issue. Some
are advocating enhanced motorized
recreational use and others are
seeking to limit or eliminate it. The
latter see it as disruptive to
historical and natural resources, as
well as being a detriment to local
residents. Enforcement of ATV
regulations is limited due to less
than sufficient law enforcement
resources (see CAR 2/06).
1. Interviews with the CNNF
archaeologist and historical and
cultural site visits provided
verification that CNNF is meeting
the FSC standards with respect to
tribal rights and protection of
historical Tribal sites and resources.
2. CNNF could revise their approach
to Tribal communications (see OBS
2/06).
1. Employee dissatisfaction regarding
Enterprise Teams can affect overall
morale and quality of work and is an
issue that needs to be taken
seriously by the USDA Forest
Service (OBS 3/06).
Page 15 of 200
workforce.
2. Many stakeholders expressed that
community and industry needs
(e.g., supplying a needed harvest
of wood) are being neglected due
to preferences given to
environmentalists and the desires
of tourists. Over 60% of the 115
mail survey respondents, coupled
with stakeholder comments and
interviews, expressed
dissatisfaction with CNNF’s timber
harvesting levels. This issue alone
was responsible for 57% of 115
mail survey respondents stating
that the CNNF needs to improve
their overall forest management.
3. Public relations and
communications were viewed
favorably by the 115 stakeholders
responding to the survey
questionnaire, as 73% felt satisfied
with this activity. Over 79% of the
115 mail survey respondents were
satisfied with public notification of
management activities and 62%
were similarly satisfied with
CNNF’s means for addressing
public inquires on forest
management.
1. The majority (61% - 77%) of the
115 stakeholders responding to
the survey questionnaire raised
concerns regarding the timber
harvesting activities on the Forest.
Most comments were not in favor
of the reduced harvest levels
currently occurring on the Forest.
P5: Benefits from
the Forest
P6:
Environmental
Impact
2. Stakeholders expressed
satisfaction with many of the
recreational and NTFP-related
management activities on the
forest. For example, 66% of the
115 stakeholders responding to
the survey questionnaires were
satisfied with the former and 73%
with the latter.
1. For slightly more than half (51.6%)
of 115 stakeholders responding to
the survey, Roadless Area
designation was viewed as
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
2. As a public entity, the CNNF has a
mandate to accommodate all
individuals and groups who claim to
have a stake in the well being of the
forest. However, the CNNF is not
meeting their stated annual harvest
goals.
3. The CNNF spends a good deal of
time interacting with the public. In
terms of some disagreements (e.g.,
the timber harvest), total resolution
to the satisfaction of all parties is an
unreasonable expectation since
appeals and lawsuits are not within
the CNNF’s control. With the
resources available to the CNNF
staff, they are doing an admirable
job in terms of meeting FSC
standards regarding public
communication.
1. Current harvest levels on CNNF are
below ASQ, which will likely cause
some of the socio-economic and
forest management goals that
generated the ASQ to be unmet.
(CAR.4/06).
2. SmartWood concurs that CNNF
works to provide suitable recreation
and NTFP harvest on the Forest.
1. CNNF is in compliance with the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
As of the date of the test evaluation,
CNNF has not received a petition
Page 16 of 200
needing improvement. Responses
were mixed between too much and
too little roadless area.
2. CNNF’s protection of rare,
threatened, and endangered
species and communities was
viewed favorably by more than
78% of the 115 stakeholders
responding to the survey.
3. Several stakeholders indicated a
concern that CNNF did not
sufficiently monitor species of
concern that are currently not
protected by state or federal law.
4. Some stakeholders commended
CNNF for working cooperatively
with other agencies, technical
experts, landowners, and others
regarding protection of RT&E
species and communities.
5. Wildlife habitat management was
viewed favorably by 58% of the
115 stakeholders responding to
the survey.
P7: Management
Plan
P8: Monitoring &
Assessment
6. Several stakeholders noted a
reduced focus on aspen
management.
1. Mail survey respondents were
evenly divided regarding the
quality of the forest management
plan documents.
1. While majorities of the 115 survey
respondents favorably viewed
CNNF’s monitoring of forest,
water, and wildlife resources, a
large minority (approximately 40%)
thought monitoring needed
improvement. Typically, increased
non-timber staffing levels and
increased time allocations to nontimber projects were viewed as
necessary by stakeholders.
2. Stakeholders expressed concern
that although data collected by
CNNF were adequate for
addressing timber-based
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
for state-specified management of
inventoried roadless areas under
the State Petitioning Rule.
2. SmartWood concurs.
3. CNNF’s LRMP addresses over 20
RFSS species that are not yet listed
as RT&E. CNNF is found to be in
conformance with the Standard on
this issue.
4. SmartWood agrees that CNNF
regularly and actively engages in
cooperative efforts to protect RT&E
species and communities. CNNF
follows the legally-mandated NEPA
process to evaluate, minimize, and
mitigate environmental impacts of
its activities.
5. SmartWood concurs.
6. The LRMP forecasts a 2%
reduction is aspen acreage over the
next 10 years and a 36% reduction
in 100 years, consistent with the
goal of developing a better
representation of other forest cover
types. Enhancing cover type
diversity is consistent with the FSC
Lake States Standard.
1. CNNF has produced a thorough
forest management plan document,
along with numerous additional
documents, that fully describe
management objectives and
methods.
1. CNNF has developed numerous,
effective monitoring protocols for a
wide variety of forest resources,
although several gaps were found
in required monitoring (CAR 7/06).
Ongoing monitoring of the social
effects of CNNF’s management
practices could be strengthened
(OBS 20/06).
2. CNNF could improve their collection
of ecologically-relevant long-term
monitoring data, such as plant
diversity (OBS 23/06).
Page 17 of 200
resources, the types of data and
frequency of monitoring were
inadequate to address ecological
characteristics of their forests.
1. Two-thirds of the 115 stakeholders
responding to the felt that HCVFs
were present on CNNF lands.
Numerous suggestions for HCVFs
were received.
P9: Maintenance
of High
Conservation
Value Forest
P10 - Plantations
3.2.
2. Stakeholders indicated that CNNF
efforts to protect currently
designated reserve areas such as
old-growth forest were adequate,
but attributes associated with
HCVF’s in non-reserve areas
currently were inadequately
protected.
None received.
1. CNNF has protected over 285,000
acres of areas consistent with the
definition of HCVF as part of
developing their current forest
management plan. Stakeholder
input regarding these areas was
collected during plan development.
2. Overall, protection of HCVFs on
CNNF lands is relatively strong,
however there is a deficiency
related to several potential old
growth stands whose status has not
yet been formally designated (CAR
5/06).
None.
Main strengths and weaknesses
Principle
P1: FSC
Commitment and
Legal
Compliance
P2: Tenure & Use
Rights &
Responsibilities
P3 – Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights
P4: Community
Relations &
Workers’ Rights
Strengths
Weaknesses
Laws and regulations are listed in the
LRMP and fully codified in USDA
Forest Service Manuals (FSMs) and
Forest Service Handbooks (FSHs).
CNNF has not demonstrated a longterm written commitment to adhere to
the FSC Principles and Criteria (CAR
1/06).
There is no evidence of consistent,
intentional non-compliance with laws
and regulations.
Clear evidence of most long-term
forest use rights to the land (e.g., land
title, customary rights, and lease
agreements) were demonstrated to the
team and were found to be clear and
readily accessible.
The CNNF Heritage Program staff
makes continuous, systematic efforts
to identify areas of cultural, historical,
and/or religious significance.
CNNF staff is not familiar with CITES
or the Convention on Biological
Diversity (OBS 1/06)
CNNF’s law enforcement capabilities
for their 1.5 million acre landscape are
limited. CNNF needs to re-evaluate
their ability to enforce laws and
regulations sufficient to protect against
resource damage (CAR 2/06).
Information provided to Tribes by
CNNF is often not in a way that
effectively meets the Tribes’ needs.
CNNF staffing and training need
improvement to provide effective
communication with Tribes (OBS
2/06).
CNNF could further consult with
employees regarding centralization
and outsourcing projects (OBS 3/06).
Communities and their citizenry
residing within, or adjacent to, the
CNNF have unique opportunities for
employment, training, and
advancement.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 18 of 200
The CNNF provides a number of
training opportunities for its employees
to enhance their on-the-job skills and
promote safety in the workplace.
Periodic Safety and Health meetings
are held forest-wide. Measures taken
to ensure the safety and the well-being
of employees are exemplary as would
be expected for a federal entity.
Services provided by the forest such
as public education and outreach,
recreational opportunities, economic
benefits, and ecosystem-related
outputs are exceptional. The Northern
Great Lakes Visitor Center is a positive
cooperative venture that greatly
enhances natural resource education
and outreach.
CNNF employees are actively
engaged in local community
organizations and activities.
P5: Benefits from
the Forest
CNNF expends significant effort on
stakeholder meetings and
consultations to solicit inputs and
concerns in regard to forest
management activities. An accessible
appeals process to planning decisions
is available.
CNNF develops a variety of timber
sale types and sizes to provide work
opportunities suited to the variety of
logging businesses.
CNNF produces a diversity of
ecosystem goods and services (e.g.,
timber, pulpwood, recreation, water
quality and quantity). The CNNF helps
contribute to a diverse economy and
has a sizable economic impact in the
region.
CNNF takes a proactive approach to
maintain, enhance, and restore the
value of forest resources such as
watersheds, fisheries, and special
habitat types.
Uncertainly regarding annual funding
levels, combined with other factors,
can leave CNNF without sufficient
resources to fully implement the goals
and objectives of the LRMP for
managing and protecting the Forest
(OBS 4/06).
CNNF does not inventory non-timber
forest products and has not developed
allowable harvest levels for these
products (CAR 3/06).
CNNF does not have guidelines for
woody debris retention (OBS 5/06).
CNNF does not have definitions of
acceptable residual tree damage (OBS
6/06).
Based on field observation, waste,
residual tree damage, and adverse soil
impacts are well within commonly
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 19 of 200
accepted levels.
CNNF does not harvest within forested
wetlands.
Timber sale reviews are conducted
annually by Supervisor’s Office staff.
P6:
Environmental
Impact
CNNF thoroughly reviewed the
accuracy of the data used in
developing allowable harvest levels
and used suitable, detailed modeling
constraints.
Assessment of current forest
conditions, ecological functions,
disturbance pathways, and special
habitats is intensive and
comprehensive.
Potential effects of climate trends
currently are not incorporated into
landscape-level comparisons of
historical, current, and/or future
desired conditions (AC 6.1.3).
Current ecological conditions are
appropriately compared to both
historical conditions and desired future
conditions within a landscape context
to guide management direction.
Evaluations of potential short term and
cumulative environmental effects of
management activities typically are
confined to National Forest Lands (AC
6.1.4).
Potential short-term impacts and
cumulative effects of environmental
impacts are exhaustively evaluated for
National Forest Lands.
CNNF contractors appear to be only
informally and irregularly trained on the
identification of RT&E and RFSS
species and their habitats or
procedures for reporting their detection
(OBS 7/06).
Multiple management options are
developed and considered to achieve
long-term desired future conditions
and ecological functions of the forest.
Extensive pre-management
evaluations are made to determine the
occurrence of and habitat conditions
for rare, threatened, or endangered
(RT&E) species, Regional Forest
Sensitive Species (RFSS), and other
sensitive species and communities.
Habitat management and conservation
guidelines have been developed and
consistently implemented for RT&E,
RFSS, and other sensitive species and
communities.
CNNF has identified Management
Areas to match management
objectives and activities to specific
geographic areas based on historical
conditions and disturbance regimes,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
When significant time lags occur
between field evaluation of RT&E and
RFSS species and project
implementation, follow-up surveys
typically are not conducted closer to
the time of project initiation in order to
confirm the presence or absence of
such species (OBS 8/06).
CNNF has not currently allocated
funding for salvage areas that may
experience future poor hardwood
regeneration. CNNF is attempting to
manage many even-aged, low-grade
hardwood stands using uneven-aged
systems, which could delay quality
development on these sites (OBS
9/06).
Given the reduced harvest levels, it
appears to be in question whether
CNNF will be able to meet the age
Page 20 of 200
current ecological characteristics, and
environmental sensitivities.
Proactive measures have been taken
to identify and protect special areas for
the purposes of adequate ecological
representation, including old growth
habitats and other ecological reference
areas.
The 2004 LRMP contains numerous
Objectives to minimize damage to
forest resources due to mechanized
activity.
The Region 9 Directive for Chapter 2
of the FSH 2509.18 contains detailed
definitions of detrimental soil
disturbance.
CNNF has an active program to repair
stream crossings that are causing
erosion or fish passage problems.
Extensive guidelines and methods
have been implemented to eliminate
and prevent the spread of NNIS.
CNNF restricts herbicide use to
controlling NNIS where 83% of the
applications used glyphosate.
Herbicides are not used in other
aspects of forest management or in
utility corridor maintenance by CNNF
policy. Mowing and prescribed burning
have been used to control interfering
woody vegetation.
P7: Management
Plan
The LRMP has a long-term strategy for
reducing the deer herd size (and
related adverse herbivory) by reducing
suitable habitat over time through the
development of more area of northern
hardwood interior forest cover type.
The depth and detail of analysis that
contributed to the 2004 LRMP is
extraordinary for forest management,
and the LRMP is a model of
completeness. There are clear
connections between the goals,
objectives, standards and guidelines,
treatment implementation, and
subsequent monitoring.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
class distributions and forest structure
objectives defined in the LRMP (CAR
4/06).
There is a long time lag between
project analysis and harvest
completion (OBS 10/06).
CNNF does not consistently delineate
vernal pool boundaries and does not
have formal buffer width requirements
(OBS 11/06)
CCNF is not specifically aware of the
FSC Policy regarding chemical
pesticides. (OBS 12/06).
CNNF’s Emergency Preparedness
Action Plan is still in draft form and not
yet official policy (OBS 13/06).
CNNF has not determined whether the
potential old growth stands outside
currently protected areas are in fact
old growth (i.e., by composition,
structure, and functionality) and
warrant protected designation (CAR
5/06).
Equipment cleaning clauses to prevent
the spread of NNIS currently are
limited to management activities within
timber sale areas (OBS 14/06).
CNNF planning documents do not
address the mineral resources on the
Forest, the status of the subsurface
rights owned by entities other than
CNNF, and the effects of this
ownership on the Forest resource
(CAR 6/06).
CNNF harvest maps do not
consistently show embedded wetlands
Page 21 of 200
Public input is sought for virtually all
management proposals and planning
documentation is readily available to
the public.
and adjacent cover types (OBS 15/06).
CNNF does not have a centralized
database for tracking employee
training (OBS 16/06).
CNNF does not require woods workers
to be trained (OBS 17/06).
CNNF does not require all pre-harvest
meetings to be held on site (OBS
18/06).
P8: Monitoring &
Assessment
The LRMP provides quantifiable
questions for establishing whether the
LRMP Objectives are being met on the
Forest, as well as documenting
deviations from the plan and
unexpected effects of management.
CNNF is a partner with external
entities in numerous research projects
on the Forest and willingly facilitates
research projects developed by
external entities.
CNNF quantitatively and extensively
monitors for changes in major habitat
elements and occurrence of RT&E,
RFSS, and other sensitive species and
communities.
CNNF has an extensive inventory
system containing data on a wide
array of forest resources.
CNNF monitoring information is readily
available in print or digital form on the
CNNF website.
CNNF has not ensured that all timber
markers are fully familiar with harvest
machine access requirements (OBS
19/06).
CNNF’s FY05 monitoring was not
complete (CAR 7/06) and on-going
social effects (such as on forest
industry employment) of CNNF
management could be monitored more
frequently (OBS 20/06).
CNNF documentation does not clearly
address the abundance, regeneration,
and habitat conditions of non-timber
forest products (CAR 8/06).
CNNF does not measure tree grade or
monitor tree grade change over time
for those components of their forest for
which published tree grades exist. As
a result, in those areas where timber
quality is a management variable of
interest and timber quality is not
superseded by other management
goals, the effects of management on
timber quality can be only vaguely
ascertained (OBS 21/06).
Linkages are not yet in place between
all databases to allow efficient and
consistent data management and
analysis (OBS 22/06).
CNNF does not consistently collect
long-term monitoring data on
ecologically-relevant forest attributes
such as such as understory plant
species composition and structure
(OBS 23/06).
CNNF does not conduct systematic
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 22 of 200
P9: Maintenance
of High
Conservation
Value Forest
CNNF has identified, mapped, and
protected a number of globally,
regionally, and locally scaled HCVFs.
Descriptions of HCVFs, as well as the
process by which they were identified,
prioritized, and protected, are
described in the Forest Plan.
P10 - Plantations
Not Applicable
Chain of custody
3.3.
stand-level and forest-wide monitoring
of wildlife den tree, snag, and coarse
woody debris retention within timber
harvest areas (OBS 24/06).
CNNF has identified approximately
1000 acres of potential old growth that
is not yet under a protected
designation (CAR 5/06).
While formal five- and 10-year
monitoring protocols are well defined,
there is not a consistent approach to
annually monitoring HCVF areas (CAR
9/06).
Not Applicable
CNNF does not have a formal CoC
control system in place (CAR 10/06)
Identified non-compliances and corrective actions
A non-conformance is a discrepancy or gap identified during the test evaluation between some aspect of the
FMO’s management system and one or more of the requirements of the forest stewardship standard.
Depending on the severity of the non- conformance the test evaluation team differentiates between major and
minor non conformances.
•
•
Major non- conformance results where there is a fundamental failure to achieve the objective of
the relevant FSC criterion. A number of minor non-conformances against one requirement may be
considered to have a cumulative effect, and therefore be considered a major non-conformance.
Minor non- conformance is a temporary, unusual or non-systematic non-conformance, for which
the effects are limited.
Major non-conformances must be corrected before a favorable finding of overall conformance can be issued.
Minor non-conformances do not prohibit issuing an overall finding of satisfactory conformance, however, they
do represent shortcomings that must be addressed in order to achieve full conformance with the standard.
With the exception of the Additional Considerations, each non-conformance is addressed by the test
evaluation team by issuing a corrective action request (CAR). Timelines for completion of CARs are not
provided as the CNNF will not be pursuing FSC certification as a part of this test evaluation.
CAR #: 1/06
Reference Standard #: 1.6.a
CNNF has not developed a written commitment to the FSC standards
Non-compliance:
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall develop a written commitment to the FSC Principles and
Criteria.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 23 of 200
CAR #: 2/06
Non-compliance:
Minor
Major
Reference Standard #: 2.2.a
Given the limited enforcement staff available to police ORV use and the
increasing use of ATVs on the Forest, improper usage has the potential to
cause effects inconsistent with the conservation of the Forest resource.
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall ensure that their strategies (e.g. education and enforcement
capabilities) are sufficient to protect the Forest resource from activity inconsistent with conserving the
Forest resources.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 3/06
Reference Standard #: 5.2.b, 7.1.d.1
No determination of total allowable harvest levels of NTFPs has been made to
Non-compliance:
ensure that harvest levels are within sustainable levels.
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall develop an effective strategy for ensuring that each nontimber forest product harvested on its lands (especially Lycopodium and sheet moss) is harvested at
sustainable levels. These levels shall be developed to ensure that localized populations of these
resources are not jeopardized.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 4/06
Reference Standard #: 6.3.a.4
With harvest levels less than ASQ, CNNF is not meeting the age class
Non-compliance:
distributions and forest structure objectives defined in the LRMP.
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall either: 1) develop effective strategies to implement the
management practices that will more closely adhere to LRMP harvest levels and move the Forest to the
desired future condition specified in the LRMP, or 2) revise their desired future condition goals and ASQ
to better reflect the actual management intensity on the Forest.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 5/06
Non-compliance:
Minor
Major
Reference Standard #: 6.4.d, 9.1.a
CNNF has not determined whether the potential old growth stands outside
currently protected areas are in fact old growth (i.e., by composition, structure,
and functionality) and warrant protected designation.
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall develop and implement a process to confirm whether
potential old growth stands outside currently protected areas are in fact old growth (i.e., by composition,
structure, and functionality) and warrant protected designation.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 6/06
Reference Standard #: 7.1.b.1, 7.1.b.4
The LRMP does not discuss the mineral resources or subsurface ownerships
Non-compliance:
on the Forest.
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall clearly describe in its planning documents the mineral
resources on the Forest, the status and location of the subsurface rights owned by entities other than
CNNF, and the effects of this ownership on the Forest resource.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 7/06
Reference Standard #: 8.1.a
Annual monitoring as required by the LRMP was incomplete.
Non-compliance:
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall ensure that monitoring is completed on schedule as detailed
in the LRMP.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 24 of 200
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
Reference Standard #: 8.2.b.1
CAR #: 8/06
CNNF documentation does not clearly address the abundance, regeneration,
Non-compliance:
Minor
and habitat conditions of the non-timber forest products.
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF inventory systems shall include the abundance, regeneration, and
habitat conditions of non-timber forest products (especially Lycopodium and moss) that are harvested
on the Forest.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 9/06
Reference Standard #: 9.4.b
CNNF does not have a consistent approach to annually monitoring some
Non-compliance:
proportion of their HCVFs for changes in attributes.
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CAR 16/06: CNNF shall develop a protocol to consistently monitor (at
least through informal observations) on an annual basis HCVF areas for changes in HCV attributes. If
changes are detected, they shall be documented and measures shall be designed to restore the HCV.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
CAR #: 10/06
Reference Standard #: CoC 5, CoC 9
CNNF does not have a formal chain of custody (CoC) system to facilitate the
Non-compliance:
tracking of forest products from their origin.
Minor
Major
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall develop, document and apply procedures for chain-ofcustody. This system shall include:
• a system to include FMO FSC certificate code and certified description of products on sales and
shipping documentation
•
a system to ensure that all use of the FSC/SW trademarks, as well as related public
information, are submitted to SmartWood for review and approval.
Timeline for Compliance: Not Applicable
3.4.
Follow-up actions required to meet the standard used in the test evaluation
Certification is not a potential outcome of this test evaluation. No major non-conformances were identified,
so no additional actions by the CNNF were needed.
3.5.
Observations
Observations are non-binding measures identified by the test evaluation team that address a very
minor inconsistency or the early stages of a performance gap which does not of itself constitute a
non-conformance, but which may lead to a future non-conformance if not addressed.
Observation
OBS 1/06: CNNF staff could become more familiar with CITES and the CBD to
avoid inadvertent future non-compliance.
OBS 2/06: CNNF could provide information and documentation on forest
management activities to Tribal entities in a way that conforms to that desired by
those entities (i.e., both full documentation and summaries of lengthy material). In
addition, CNNF staff could ensure that communication, training, hiring, and other
actions taken to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CNNF and
Tribal entities are occurring.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Standard
Reference
1.3.a
3.2.a
Page 25 of 200
OBS 3/06: The USDA Forest Service and the CNNF could look to their employees
for inputs and comments on the ongoing centralization of services and the drive
toward more efficient operations before implementing such actions. This would
include the “Enterprise Team” concept.
OBS 4/06: In order to avoid chronic shortfalls in achieving stated management
objectives, CNNF could re-evaluate current goals and objectives in light of
budgetary resources and make adjustments accordingly, to either goals or budgets,
such that forest plan objectives are achievable given funding levels.
OBS 5/06: CNNF could develop quantitative guidelines for woody debris retention
that can be used throughout the Forest to ensure that adequate quantities are
maintained on harvest areas.
OBS 6/06: CNNF could develop definitions of acceptable residual tree damage to
ensure consistency in evaluation across the Forest.
OBS 7/06: CNNF could consider formal training of contractors on: 1) identification of
RT&E species, RSFF, and other sensitive species and communities; and, 2)
procedures for reporting the detection of such species to CNNF staff.
OBS 8/06: When significant time lags occur between pre-project on-the-ground
surveys for RT&E species or RFSS and the commencement of management
activities, CNNF could conduct additional surveys to confirm the continued presence
or absence of such species.
OBS 9/06: CNNF could develop contingency plans to ensure that adequate future
funding is available to reforest areas planned for natural regeneration, but eventually
found to lack adequate natural regeneration, without reducing funding for previously
planned reforestation projects.
OBS 10/06: CNNF could consider strategies for shortening the length of time that
transpires between project inception and completion in order to avoid unplanned and
potentially significant delays in achieving goals for desired future forest conditions
(e.g. age-class distribution),
OBS 11/06: CNNF could develop formal buffer width guidelines to ensure that
adverse environmental changes to vernal pools smaller than one acre do not occur.
OBS 12/06: CCNF could review the FSC policy paper on chemical use to ensure
that unintended non-conformance with that policy does not occur.
OBS 13/06: CNNF could expedite the approval of their DRAFT Emergency
Preparedness Action Plan to ensure that all parties adhere to it as official policy.
OBS 14/06: CNNF could consider requiring preventative measures (e.g. equipment
cleaning clauses) to all management activities that could potentially spread NNIS.
OBS 15/06: CNNF could develop and implement protocols to establish a consistent
mapping template for use on all Districts that identifies all pertinent information..
CNNF could establish a timeline for implementing various components of the GIS
Action Plan to ensure that these improvements to the program are completed in a
timely manner.
OBS 16/06: CNNF could improve the likelihood that Forest-wide staff are
adequately trained and qualified by maintaining training records for each employee.
OBS 17/06: CNNF could consider additional strategies (e.g. require contractors and
woods workers to participate in formal training programs) to ensure consistently high
standards for harvesting activities.
OBS 18/06: CNNF could require all pre-harvest meetings to be held on site to
ensure that miscommunication does not occur.
OBS 19/06: CNNF could provide timber markers with training on the access
requirements for harvesting operations to ensure that the correct trees are marked
for access purposes.
OBS 20/06: In order to facilitate timely and meaningful assessments of their impacts
on local communities, CNNF could monitor socio-economic effects (such as on
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
4.1.b
5.1.c
5.3.a, 6.3.c.1
5.3.c, 6.5
6.2.a
6.2.b
6.3.a.2
6.3.a.4
6.3.c.3
6.6.a
6.7.a
6.9.d
7.1.h.1
7.3.a
7.3.a
7.3.a
7.3.a
8.1.b, 8.2.d.2
Page 26 of 200
forest industry employment) of management activities on a more frequent basis.
OBS 21/06: CNNF could monitor hardwood tree grades on the Forest to quantify
that actual changes in the grade distribution are consistent with the forest commodity
goal (Goal 2.5) of the Forest.
OBS 22/06: CNNF could continue to aggressively address their concerns with
consistent data collection and the linkage of the various databases used on the
Forest.
OBS 23/06: CNNF could develop and incorporate long-term monitoring data
collection on ecologically-relevant forest attributes such as such as understory plant
species composition and structure, vertical layering of vegetative strata, and
distribution, size and decay classes of snags and CWD into its monitoring program.
OBS 24/06: CNNF could develop more extensive and systematic stand-level and
forest-wide monitoring (of implementation and effectiveness) of wildlife den tree,
snag, and coarse woody debris retention associated with regular timber harvest
activities.
3.6.
8.2.a.1
8.2.b.1, 8.4.a
8.2.c.1
8.2.c.1
Test Evaluation Summary
Based on a thorough field review, analysis, and compilation of findings by this SmartWood test evaluation
team, CNNF has demonstrated that their described system of management is being implemented
consistently over the entire forest area covered by the scope of the test evaluation. As no Major NonConformances were identified, SmartWood concludes that CNNF’s management system, if implemented
as described, is in overall conformance with the FSC Standards and Additional Considerations used for
this test evaluation. Areas of weakness that would need to be addressed to be in full conformance with the
FSC Standards and Additional Considerations are: formal commitment to FSC; forest protection strategies
and activities; management, inventory and monitoring of harvested NTFPs; age class distribution resulting
from reduced harvest levels; classification of potential old growth stands (nearly completed); information
management of mineral resources and subsurface rights; incomplete monitoring of LRMP objectives;
annual monitoring of HCVFs; chain-of-custody system..
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 27 of 200
4. CLIENT SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4.1.
Ownership and land tenure description
In 1911, the United States Congress passed the Weeks Act, which permitted the federal government to
acquire lands in the eastern U.S. for the establishment of National Forests. Both the Chequamegon and
Nicolet National Forests were established by Presidential proclamation in 1933 and were originally made
up of largely abandoned and tax delinquent lands acquired by the federal government under the authority
of this Act. During the Great Depression, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) members planted thousands
of acres of red pine and jack pine, built firebreaks, and constructed recreational facilities. Evidence of this
history can still be seen on the CNNF. Since 1993, the two forests have been administered as one unit
with Supervisor’s Offices in both Park Falls and Rhinelander. The CNNF is divided into administrative
units called ranger districts. There are five ranger districts on the CNNF. Three of ranger districts: Great
Divide, Medford-Park Falls, and Washburn-are on the Chequamegon side of the forest. On the Nicolet
side, there are two ranger districts: Lakewood-Laona and Eagle River-Florence. Each ranger district
maintains an office in the communities with which they share their names except Great Divide, which has
offices in the communities of Glidden and Hayward. Current acreage for the CNNF is 1,522, 485, which is
95% forested with a second growth maturing hardwood forest located at the interface between the
southern deciduous forests and the northern boreal spruce-fir forests. This area constitutes approximately
4.4% of the total state land base, 9.9% of the forest land in Wisconsin, 15.5% of the commercial forest
land in the northern forest region, and 36.7% of the publicly owned forest land in the northern forest
region. Private land parcels are scattered within the boundaries of the CNNF, with over 1,200 separate
inholdings.
4.2.
Legislative and government regulatory context
As a unit of the USDA Forest Service, the CNNF is required to abide by an extensive array of legislative
and regulatory mandates covering all activities and operations ranging from planning processes,
infrastructure development, forest management, employee relations, and law enforcement. Laws related
to planning that are particularly important include the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The planning process was further enhanced with the
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This Act brought environmental
analysis and public participation into planning of federal activities. The NEPA process makes information
available to the public both before decisions are made and prior to taking action. To be in compliance with
NEPA and other relevant regulations, EISs have to be written. In the Forest Plan, EISs document the
effects of implementing various forest management options.
Other major pieces of legislation include the NFMA regulations (1982 version), Endangered Species Act of
1973 as amended in 1978, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended through 1992,
Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, and Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended
through 2002. New NFMA regulations established analytical and procedural requirements for developing,
revising, and amending Forest Plans. In recreation management, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965, as amended through 1996 and the National Trails System Act of 1968, are particularly
relevant. The Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576b) as amended, authorizes the use of
timber sales receipts to reforest harvested areas and protect future productivity. USDA regulations also
guide issues related to employee responsibilities and conduct (7 CFR 0.735-11(b) (14)) and safety issues
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)).
The USDA Forest Service Directives System is the primary basis for management and control of all
internal CNNF programs and serves as the primary source of administrative direction for employees. It
sets forth legal authorities, management objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, standards,
procedures, and other instructions. The FSM contains legal authorities, goals, objectives, policies,
responsibilities, instructions, and necessary guidance when planning and executing assigned programs
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 28 of 200
and activities. The FSHs are directives providing instructions and guidance on how to proceed with a
specialized phase of a program or activity.
In several cases, Wisconsin state law also applies to CNNF forest activities. For instance, waterways are
under the jurisdiction of the State of Wisconsin, who is responsible for evaluating water quality and issuing
permits for management activities conducted in waterways. Hunting and fishing licenses are required on
the CNNF and must be purchased from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
4.3.
Environmental Context
The 1.5 million acre CNNF stretches across approximately 3.5 degrees of longitude and 1.5 degrees of
latitude in the northern third of Wisconsin. In a region that is approximately 80% forested, the CNNF is the
largest land base under a single ownership. It is abutted by one state forest, numerous county forests, and
the Ottawa NF in Michigan. Within Wisconsin, private non-industrial landowners own 52% of the northern
mixed forest, county and municipal entities own 17%, and CNNF owns 13%.
Recreation and development pressures are resulting in increasing parcelization of the large ownerships
that were once held by private industries in this region, resulting in numerous, smaller ownerships with
diverse objectives for the property. Often, these objectives include developing a cabin or second home.
Public lands provide the few remaining opportunities for maintaining large-scale contiguous forests under
a common management system.
CNNF lands are located within 41 5th-level watersheds, with about half draining through the Great Lakes to
the Atlantic and the other half draining through the Upper Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. There are 609
lakes larger than 10 acres within the CNNF boundaries. Only 9% of these lakes have shorelines that are
completely federally owned, leaving the remainder of the lakes with some potential for development.
The current vegetation within the region occupied by CNNF resulted from early 1800s Euro-American
settlement, followed by cutover and fires. Fire control began in the 1930s, to which many of the upland
forests date their origination. The region’s current, second-growth forest consists of sugar/maple
basswood (37% of forest acreage), aspen/birch (27%), and spruce/fir (12%) cover types. Red and white
pine combined account for approximately 7% of the forest. This forest is simplified in species composition,
structure (e.g., age classes), and functional components (e.g., fire rotations) from the forest of the early
1800s. This simplification is a result of the young age of these forests, reduction in seed sources for
certain conifer species (such as eastern hemlock) due to past logging, and deer herbivory on tree
regeneration and ground flora. Non-native, invasive plant species on the CNNF are numerous (currently
numbering 16) and have the potential to further alter terrestrial and aquatic plant communities.
Management opportunities for this region (as identified by the Wisconsin DNR) include: 1) Landscape
scale forest management to retain or restore the compositional, structural, and functional attributes of
northern forest ecosystems; 2) Restoration of older successional stages and larger forest patches;
3) Maintaining larger blocks of interior northern hardwood forest; 4) Restoring the missing or diminished
conifer component of forests, especially hemlock, white pine, and white cedar; 5) Establishing ecological
linkages within this landscape along major river corridors.
Resident populations of three federally listed RT&E species occur on the CNNF: gray wolf, bald eagle, and
Fassett’s Locoweed. Additionally, RFSS plants (2), animals (14), and insects (8) are found on the CNNF.
4.4.
Socioeconomic Context
Located in the northern region of Wisconsin, the CNNF lies within 11 different counties: Ashland, Bayfield,
Florence, Forest, Langlade, Oconto, Oneida, Price, Sawyer, Taylor, and Vilas. Larger communities near
or within the CNNF include Ashland, Crandon, Eagle River, Florence, Lakewood, Laona, Medford, Park
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 29 of 200
Falls, and Rhinelander. Small communities exist within the CNNF, including Drummond, Clam Lake,
Perkinstown, Phelps, Tipler, Alvin, Argonne, Hiles, Wabeno, Cavour, and Mountain. Population increases
in the 11 counties encompassing the CNNF ranged from 1.4 to 18.8 % between 1990 and 2000. The
population continues to steadily increase. The CNNF fulfills many social, ecological, and environmental
functions and is important to the fabric of the surrounding communities and the state of Wisconsin.
However, the staff must manage the forest under legislative mandates while being mindful of a public who
often have different and conflicting demands on the forest. Primarily, these interests include the forest
products industry, environmentalists, and recreationists, to name a few. The CNNF also has an ongoing
dialogue with a number of Indian Tribes and solicits their input for forest planning and management. The
CNNF maintains government to government relationships with federally recognized Tribes, implement
programs and activities honoring Indian treaty rights, administer programs and activities to address and be
sensitive to traditional native religious beliefs and practices, and recognizes federal treaty and trust
responsibilities. Visitors from other states and countries also make use of the CNNF. They commonly
travel from metropolitan areas such as Duluth, Minneapolis, and St Paul in Minnesota; Wausau, Green
Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee in Wisconsin; and Chicago and northern Illinois.
The CNNF is mandated by law to provide a multitude of ecosystem services to society, which includes
watershed protection, plant and animal habitats, cultural history, recreation, wood products, and research
and demonstration. Historically, millions of board feet of timber have been harvested annually, providing
jobs for loggers and those involved in making wood products and furniture. For many rural communities,
forest industries are important to the economy and cultural heritage and they depend, in part, on the
forestry-based activity associated with the CNNF (e.g., average combined annual sale quantity of 106
million board feet per year from 1996 through 2001). Over, 8,000 jobs have been attributed to the wood
products industry in counties associated with the CNNF. The percent of National Forest land in a county
is also important both socially and economically. Revenues from timber sales, special use permits, and
other revenue-generating activities are important to the 11 counties with CNNF land within their
boundaries, each of which is entitled to payments based on annual national forest receipts. Such
payments have more than doubled from 1992 to 2001. Twenty-five Percent Fund of 1908, Payments in
Lieu of Taxes (PILT), or Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRSCS)
payments to each county are directly related to the amount of National Forest land contained within the
county. Of the three, the 25% Fund is the most important, as it authorizes the USDA Forest Service to pay
qualifying counties 25% of the forest’s annual net revenues. Payments are used by the counties for
education or road construction and maintenance. Smaller communities in and near the CNNF have the
most potential to be affected by changes in forestry-related and tourism expenditures. Many community
residents have long depended on the forests for their livelihood and recreation while others have moved to
the area more recently to retire.
The provision of forest ecosystem services also allows for a large number of customary use rights on the
land base. A diverse range of forest products, from medicinal plants to sawtimber, pulpwood, and other
forest products (e.g., boughs), are harvested and are important to local culture and the economy. Dozens
of campgrounds provide opportunities for lakeside recreation and many more lakes and rivers are
accessible at boat and canoe landings. Other activities include hunting and angling, hiking, cross-country
skiing, All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and snowmobile use, as well as a number of non-consumptive activities
such as wildlife watching, wilderness exploration, picnicking, swimming, and camping. Citizens from major
cities, Wisconsin communities, and other areas travel to the CNNF to take part in both summer and winter
recreational opportunities. Roads and trails provide motorized access to most parts of the CNNF and are
used by hunters, anglers, and those who drive for pleasure. ATV and snowmobile trails are plentiful on
the Chequamegon side and snowmobile trails are common on the Nicolet side. Sixteen semi-primitive
non-motorized areas and five Congressionally-designated Wilderness areas also exist on the CNNF. The
2003 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) study on the CNNF indicated there were over 2.1 million
visits directed toward these sites and activities. Recreational expenditures further add to the economic
impacts derived by county economies associated with the CNNF.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 30 of 200
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 31 of 200
APPENDIX I: FSC Reporting Form: Detailed FMO information
SCOPE OF EVALUATION
Type of management entity:
single FMU
SLIMF status:
no SLIMF
Number of group members (if applicable):
Total number of Forest Management Units FMUs: One
Division of the FMUs within the scope:
# of FMU-s
1
total forest area FMU group
1,522,485 acres
List of each FMU included in the evaluation: Not applicable.
FMU
FMU Owner
Area
Chequamegon-Nicolet
USDA Forest Service
1,522,485 acres
Nat’l Forest
Forest Type
Temperate hardwoods
and conifers
Product categories included in the scope:
Type of product:
Description
wood products
Sawtimber, pulpwood,
Other: Special Forest
Balsam boughs, Christmas trees, firewood, seedlings, sheet moss,
Products
cones/acorns, other misc.
FMO INFO
Location of managed forests
Forest zone
Management tenure:
Number of FMO employees:
Number of forest workers (including contractors)
working in forest within the scope of certificate:
Latitude: E 89 degrees 00 minutes
Longitude: N 45 degrees 30 minutes
Temperate
Public, federal
250
300 (# is FMO’s plus approx 50 different
contractors)
Species and annual allowable cut
Botanical name
Common trade name
Hardwood Pulpwood
Hardwood Sawtimber
Aspen Pulpwood
Softwood Pulpwood
Softwood Sawtimber
Total
Total annual estimated log production:
Total annual estimates production of NTFP
(2006:
Boughs
Annual
allowable
cut
53,000 mbf
8,000 mbf
31,000mbf
30,000mbf
9,000 mbf
131,000mbf
Actual
harvest in
last year
24,300mbf
2,400 mbf
11,500mbf
29,900mbf
9,600 mbf
77,700mbf
Projected
harvest for
next year
21,500mbf
2,500 mbf
10,000mbf
26,000mbf
10,000 mbf
70,000mbf
12,000mbf
272 tons
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 32 of 200
Firewood
Princess Pine/Moss
4751 cords
6500 pounds
FOREST AREA CLASSIFICATION
Total management area
Total forest area in scope of evaluation
Forest area that is:
Privately managed
0 acres
State managed
0 acres
Community managed
0 acres
Federally managed
1,522,485 acres
1,522,485 acres
1,318,863 acres
Area of production forests (areas where timber may be harvested)
Area without any harvesting or management activities (strict reserves)
Area without timber harvesting and managed only for production of nontimber forest products or services
Area classified as plantations 1
Area or share of the total production forest area
regenerated naturally
Area or share of the total production forest area
regenerated by planting or seeding
Area or share of the total production forest are
regenerated by other or mixed methods (describe)
864,094 acres
454,769 acres (strict
reserves plus other
non suited lands)
454,769 acres
0 acres
90 %
10 %
0%
Conservation values present in the forest (High Conservation Value Forests or HCVF)
and respective areas
Description:
HCVF Attributes
Location on FMU
A forest contains globally, regionally or
Management areas 8 E, F, and G
nationally significant: concentrations of
contain the highest quality, most
biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered
intact, most-representative examples
species, refugia)
of the Northern terrestrial
ecosystems.
A forest contains globally, regionally or
nationally significant: large landscape level
forests, contained within, or containing the
management unit, where viable populations of
most if not all naturally occurring species exist in
natural patterns of distribution and abundance
The CNNF is the largest block of
single ownership in the state.
The Nicolet portion of the CNNF and
the Washburn and Great Divide
districts of the Chequamegon portion
of the CNNF represent the two
largest contiguous areas of public
land in Wisconsin.
Area (ac)
184,600
1,522,485
662,000
and
576,000
acres, in
that order
1
According to FSC definition “plantations” in this context should be understood as forest areas lacking most of the principal characteristics and key
elements of native ecosystems as defined by FSC-approved national and regional standards of forest stewardship, which result from the human
activities of either planting, sowing or intensive silvicultural treatments.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 33 of 200
They are in, or contain rare, threatened or
endangered ecosystems
They provide basic services of nature in critical
or unique situations (e.g. watershed protection,
erosion control);
They are fundamental to meeting basic needs of
local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)
and/or critical to local communities’ traditional
cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological,
economic or religious significance identified in
cooperation with such local communities).
Management Areas 8 E, F, G
184,600
The CNNF is a major headwaters
region, located within 41 different 5th
level watersheds averaging 235
square miles. The Forest contains
almost 350,000 acres of wetlands,
over 600 lakes greater than 10 acres,
and over 2,000 miles of perennial
streams and rivers.
1,522,485
The CNNF is fundamental to the
economic, cultural, and ecological
sustainability of a large number of
local communities and Tribes
throughout northern Wisconsin.
1,522,485
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 34 of 200
APPENDIX II: Public summary of the management plan
Main objectives of the forest management are: Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
CNNF to meet the needs of present and future generations.
Main priority: Ensure healthy and sustainable ecosystems
Secondary priority: Provide multiple benefits for people within the capability of sustainable
ecosystems
Other priorities: Ensure effective public service through organizational effectiveness.
Forest composition: The upland is 44% hardwood, oak, hemlock; 39% aspen, balsam fir, paper
birch & jack pine; 14% red & white pine and 3% upland opening. The lowland is 50% conifer, 38%
open and 12% hardwoods.
Description of Silvicultural system(s) used: Figures below relate only to suited timberlands.
% of forest under
Silvicultural system
this management
Even aged management
30 %
Clearcutting (clearcut size range 40 acres*)
20 %
*Clearcuts maybe up to 1,000 acres in MA 4C & 300 acres in MA 8C
Shelterwood
10 %
Uneven aged management
70 %
Individual tree selection (see note below)
70 %
Group selection (group harvested of less than 1 ha in size)
0%
100 %
Other types of management: Salvage and fuels treatment as needed.
Numerous other management (non-timber) activities occur on the Forest
(recreation, fish/wildlife, fire prevention/suppression, watershed, soils, nonnative invasive, botany, heritage, roads, etc).
Note: CNNF uneven-aged management activities are mostly based on gap-phase silviculture.
Silvicultural techniques associated with these prescriptions include both single tree selection and
small group selections. The text in the public summary has been modified to reflect this correction.
Harvest methods and equipment used: hand and mechanized
Estimate of maximum sustainable yield for main commercial species: 251 MMBF is the Long
Term Sustained Yield while 131 MMBF is the Allowable Sale Quantity.
Explanation of the assumptions (e.g. silvicultural) upon which estimates are based and
reference to the source of data (e.g. inventory data, permanent sample plots, yield tables) upon
which estimates are based upon.
The Spectrum model was used (Twigs volume equations modified by recent FIA data) to build our
Forest Plan. The summary inventory data is stored in CDS (Combined Data System) and the actual
plot data is recorded in FSVeg (Field Sampled Vegetation). Various rules (see Forest plan record)
were applied to Spectrum in order to find the solution to achieving Forest species and age class
composition over the long term while being consistent with the goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines of the Forest Plan.
Forest management organizational structure and management responsibilities from senior
management to operational level (how is management organized, who controls and takes
decisions etc.) The Forest Supervisor makes forest-wide or large-scale decisions, such as
implementing the harvest of declining spruce plantations across the CNNF. District Rangers make
smaller scale decisions, such as timber, recreation, wildlife and fish management, for their District.
District Rangers report directly to the Forest Supervisor.
Structure of forest management units (division of forest area into manageable units etc.) The
CNNF is divided into five Ranger Districts that are each about 300,000 acres in size. Each District is
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 35 of 200
subdivided into Management Areas as defined in the CNNF 2004 Land and Resource Management
Plan.
Monitoring procedures (including yield of all forest products harvested, growth rates,
regeneration, and forest condition, composition/changes in flora and fauna, environmental and
social impacts of forest management, costs, productivity and efficiency of forest management)
Monitoring and evaluation is designed to answer the following basic questions:
1. Did we do what we said we were going to do? Collected information is compared to Objectives,
Standards, Guidelines, and Management Area direction.
2. Did it work how we said it would? This question answers whether implementation of activities
such as timber harvesting are achieving goals.
3. Is our understanding and science correct? This question answers whether the assumptions and
predicted effects used to formulate the goals and objectives are valid.
To answer these questions, interdisciplinary teams of Forest personnel, members of other
governmental agencies (e.g. Wisconsin DNR) and/or contractors gather and analyze information and
the CNNF reports the findings in an annual report. The precision and reliability of the monitoring
methods vary by resource, by cost and by the relative importance of the resource issue being
addressed by the monitoring activity. The results of monitoring activities enable the forest to employ
adaptive management under the 2004 Forest Plan whereby the things that aren’t working can be
remedied and those that are working properly are validated. For more information, please see the
annual monitoring & evaluation guide (available from the Forest Monitoring Coordinator) and the
annual monitoring report. The 2005 Annual Monitoring Report is now available to the public via the
Forest’s website.
Environmental protection measures, e.g. buffer zones for streams, riparian areas, etc.,
protection measures for Rare Threatened and Endangered Species and habitat:
Chapter 2 of the CNNF 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan lists forest-wide standards and
guidelines that provide protection for water, soil, biological, wildlife, fish, vegetation and other
resources. A Standard is defined as a course of action that must be followed, or a level of attainment
that must be reached, to achieve forest goals. Adherence to Standards is mandatory, in most cases.
In general, they limit project-related activities, not compel, or require them. Standards are developed
when A) applicable laws or policies do not exist, or clarification of existing laws or policies is needed,
B) they are critical to achievement of objectives or C) unacceptable impacts may occur if a Standard is
not employed. A Guideline is also a course of action that must be followed, however, Guidelines
relate to activities where site-specific factors may require some flexibility. The Forest has cooperated
and coordinated with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Wisconsin DNR, the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission and others to develop and implement these resource protection
measures across boundaries and continues to evaluate their worth.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 36 of 200
APPENDIX III: Test evaluation standard conformance checklist
(confidential)
The following checklist must be completed separately for each FMU evaluated. Based on the evaluation
of conformance with each indicator, a conformance determination has been assigned. Conformance with
indicators is determined by the entire test evaluation team through a consensus process. Where nonconformance with the standard is documented by the team, corrective action requests (CAR) are
outlined. The following definitions apply:
Precondition
Requirements that FMO must meet before certification by SmartWood
could take place.
Minor CAR
Requirements that FMO must meet, within a defined time period (usually
within one year), during a period of the certification,
Observation
Non-binding measures identified by the test evaluation team that
address a very minor inconsistency or the early stages of a performance
gap which does not of itself constitute a non-conformance, but which
may lead to a future non-conformance if not addressed.
For each indicator presented below, the test evaluation team’s determination of conformance and
relevant findings are presented. Where applicable, CARs or observations are referenced under the
indicator and detailed in the note section of the applicable criterion.
PRINCIPLE 1. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND FSC PRINCIPLES - Forest management shall
respect all applicable laws of the country in which they occur and international treaties and
agreements to which the country is a signatory, and comply with all FSC Principles and Criteria.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
1.1.
Forest management shall respect all national and local laws and administrative
requirements
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
1.1.a. Forest management plans and
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
operations comply with applicable Federal,
state, county, tribal, and municipal laws,
The CNNF 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan
rules, and regulations.
(LRMP) was prepared in accordance with the NFMA, NEPA,
and all associated laws and regulations (p. P-1, LRMP), as
are subsequent project-level activities. Appendix AA-1
(Relevant Federal and State Statutes, Regulations, Policy,
Plans, and Agreements) of the LRMP lists these items that
are pertinent to CNNF operations. The Forest Service
Directive System (consisting of Forest Service Manuals
(FSM) and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH)) details the
policies and procedures that CNNF will follow. FSM 1011.04
states that “Line officers are responsible for ensuring that
employees are aware of the provisions of law applicable to
their responsibilities and that Forest Service programs and
operations are administered in compliance with applicable
laws”. The FSM and the FSH may be supplemented at the
Region or Forest levels to make them more restrictive.
Numerous instances were cited by CNNF staff where they
obtained state permits for CNNF work conducted within
state waters. Stakeholder consultation did not present
contrary evidence.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 37 of 200
1.1.b. Forest management plans and
operations comply with state Best
Management Practices (BMPs) (see
Appendix for references) and other
government forest management guidelines
applicable to the forest, both voluntary and
regulatory (see also Criterion 6.5).
There is no evidence of consistent, intentional noncompliance with laws and regulations. CNNF was recently
involved with litigation on three projects: Northwest Howell,
Cayuga, and McCaslin. The litigants asserted various
violations of NEPA. The federal judge ruled in favor of the
Forest Service on all counts, except one. The court required
CNNF to supplement the cumulative effects analyses for all
three projects. CNNF has now produced FSEISs for two of
the three projects, which were available for public comment
while in draft form. At the time of the site visit, the McCaslin
FSEIS had just been appealed.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF utilizes the Wisconsin Forestry Best Management
Practices (BMP) for Water Quality, as a minimum mitigation
measure, whenever operating near waterways and
wetlands. CNNF also utilizes the Wisconsin Construction
Site Best Management Practices Handbook to mitigate
impacts during road construction near waterways. No
violations of these BMPs were observed during field visits.
For those rivers on the CNNF that are designated, or eligible
to be designated, as wild, scenic, and recreational rivers,
additional management restrictions exceeding state BMPs
are described in the LRMP (p. 3-46 to 3-48). These
restrictions are designed to maintain the qualities that
establish the river segment as having high wild, scenic, or
recreational value.
For non-common variety minerals (oil, gas, coal, precious
metals, geo-thermal energy, and base metals), prospectors
(those with mineral rights leases) are required to protect
surface resources to the extent practicable for both the
federally owned mineral estate and the reserved mineral
estate. The specific protections required depend on type of
mineral ownership and which federal and state laws apply.
But in general, all mineral estate owners are subject to the
federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered
Species Act, and the Mineral and Mining Policy act of 1970,
as well as case law concerning surface owner’s rights.
1.1.c. Forest management plans and
operations meet or exceed all applicable
laws and administrative requirements with
respect to sharing public information,
opening records to the public, and
following procedures for public
participation.
The non-common variety mineral prospecting activity that
has occurred on the CNNF has required prospecting permit
holders to protect surface resources while conducting their
prospecting activity and to perform reclamation activities as
needed (e.g., drill hole abandonment and temporary road
and drill site reclamation).
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF makes planning documentation and forest data
publicly available. Public comment is solicited prior to
initiating management activities, as required by NEPA. See
also Criterion 4.4 findings.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 38 of 200
1.1. DOD/DOE 1. Disputes and legal
challenges over land management and
agency actions, including administrative
and judicial appeals filed by stakeholders
outside the agency, are identified.
Information on the processes for resolving
disputes is readily available to interested
stakeholders.
AC 1.1.1. By policy and action, managers
of National Forests shall demonstrate
compliance with applicable federal laws
and administrative requirements (e.g.
NEPA, Roadless Area Conservation Rule
and associated State Petitioning Rule,
ESA, Clean Water Act, NFMA, MUSYA,
The Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, Organic Act, CFR, Title 7,
applicable sections of the US Code, the
Forest Service Manual, and Forest Service
Handbooks).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF identified all appeals and litigations related to the
development of the 2004 LRMP and subsequent projects.
Processes for resolving disputes are readily available to
stakeholders.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF completed their roadless area review in 2001,
identifying nine areas that met the minimum standards
describing roadless areas. In the 2004 LRMP, three of these
areas were designated as potential Wilderness Study Areas.
The remaining areas were allocated primarily to
Management Areas 1 and 2. Since these allocations were
made through NEPA (and with public consultation) at the
time of the plan revision, CNNF is in compliance with the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As of the date of the test
evaluation, CNNF has not received a petition for statespecified management of inventoried roadless areas under
the State Petitioning Rule.
It is CNNF policy to comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. These laws and regulations include those
explicitly listed in this Additional Consideration: NEPA,
Roadless Area Conservation Rule and associated State
Petitioning Rule, ESA, Clean Water Act, NFMA, MUSYA,
The Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Organic
Act, CFR, Title 7, applicable sections of the US Code, the
Forest Service Manual, and Forest Service Handbooks.
There is no evidence of non-compliance with the remaining
elements of the Additional Consideration.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
AC 1.1.2. Managers of National Forests
shall comply with state, county, local and
municipal laws except where federal law
There is no evidence of non-compliance with state, county,
preempts state, county and local laws.
and local laws. CNNF operates under State of Wisconsin
When federal laws preempt compliance
permits when management activities occur in waterways.
with those of other jurisdictions,
There are no known examples of federal law preempting
corresponding statutes or regulations shall state and local laws.
be specifically referenced and described.
NOTES: None
1.2.
All applicable and legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges shall be paid
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
1.2.a. Taxes on forest land and timber, as
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
well as other fees related to forest
management, are paid in a timely manner
CNNF is not subject to state property taxation or the
and in accordance with state and local
payment of other fees on its lands or timber. The federal
laws.
government is required to make payments to local
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 39 of 200
communities under Public Law 97-258 (Payments in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT)) to offset the reduction in local property tax
receipts due to non-taxable federal lands in the local
jurisdiction. Also, under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act (SRSCS; PL 106-393),
the federal government pays 25% of timber revenues or a
“full payment” amount to local communities based on the
three highest past 25% payments. All payments are made
by the Department of Interior to the State of Wisconsin, who
then distributes the funds to local communities. Data
provided by the State of Wisconsin and the Forest Service
for the most recent year available (2005) confirmed that
these payments, totaling $2.85 million, had been made to
the 11 counties were CNNF lands are located.
NOTES: None
1.3.
In signatory countries, the provisions of all the binding international agreements such as
CITES, ILO conventions, ITTA, and Convention on Biological Diversity, shall be respected.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
1.3.a. Forest management operations
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
comply with all binding treaties or other
agreements to which the U.S. is a party,
CNNF staff stated they were not aware of any international
including treaties with American Indian
agreements that would affect CNNF lands (OBS 1/06).
tribes.
However, CNNF staff were also not familiar with
international agreements such as CITES or the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD).
CNNF lands provide “…treaty guaranteed hunting, fishing
and gathering rights … that may be exercised on lands
administered by the Forest Service located within the ceded
territories” to certain Bands of the Ojibway Nation. CNNF
operates under the “MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING REGARDING TRIBAL - USDAFOREST SERVICE RELATIONS ON NATIONAL FOREST
LANDS WITHIN THE TERRITORIES CEDED IN TREATIES
OF 1836, 1837, AND 1842” to ensure CNNF’s compliance
with these treaties.
Based on field observation, CNNF is not harvesting, or
allowing to be harvested, species listed in CITES and CNNF
is adequately addressing the CBD Focal Areas for the 2010
Biodiversity Target.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
1.3.b Forest owners or managers comply
with ILO Labor Conventions impacting
forest operations and practices and the ILO CNNF, as a federal entity, is required to adhere to the Fair
Code of Practice on Safety and Health in
Labor Standards Act. There was no evidence of nonForestry Work.
compliance with the ILO Labor Conventions.
NOTES: OBS 1/06: CNNF staff could become more familiar with CITES and the CBD to avoid inadvertent
future non-compliance.
1.4.
Conflicts between laws, regulations and the FSC Principles and Criteria shall be evaluated
for the purposes of certification, on a case-by-case basis, by the certifiers and the involved or
affected parties.
Applicability note to Criterion 1.4: When the certifier (i.e., the FSC-accredited certification body)
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 40 of 200
and the forest owner or manager determine that compliance with laws and the FSC Principles
cannot be simultaneously achieved, the matter is referred to FSC.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
1.4.a. Where conflicts between laws and
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
FSC Principles and Criteria occur, they are
referred to the appropriate FSC body.
There are no known conflicts between the laws and
regulations directing CNNF operations and the FSC
Principles and Criteria.
NOTES: None
1.5.
Forest management areas should be protected from illegal harvesting, settlement, and
other unauthorized activities.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
1.5.a. Forest owners or managers
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
implement measures to prevent illegal
and unauthorized activities in the forest.
In 2006, CNNF developed the Timber Theft Prevention Plan
to “…to improve and standardize theft prevention and
detection measures by gaining consistency at the Forest
level.” This Plan was developed as a result of a 1996
national audit by the federal Office of the Inspector General
that found the need for better coordination between law
enforcement personnel, better accountability for tracer paint,
and for independent checks of additional sale volume. The
Plan is designed to address “…violations of laws and
regulations, noncompliance with timber sale contract
provisions resulting in resource degradation, special forest
products program administration, and unlawful cutting or
removal of timber on adjacent public and private lands
within National Forest boundaries.”
Most, but not yet all, CNNF parcel boundaries are well
marked and numerous examples of these boundaries were
reviewed in the field. CNNF uses gating in sensitive areas to
restrict motorized public access. CNNF relies on four Law
Enforcement Officers, two on each side of the Forest, and
approximately 12 Forest Protection Officers per District to
respond to illegal activities. The Forest also has cooperative
agreements with local sheriff’s departments to provide
assistance.
While timber trespass and theft of forest products have
occurred, these instances are vigorously investigated and
remedied. CNNF, as well as other National Forests in the
Region, has a zero tolerance policy for cutting merchantable
unmarked trees within sale units. This was repeatedly
stressed by a variety of sale administrators across the
Forest.
CNNF has regulations in place to protect the Forest against
illegal ATV use, illegal dumping, and illegal harvesting of
non-timber forest products. CNNF enforces these
regulations to the extent of their capability (however, see
also Indicators 2.2.a and 5.1.a findings).
NOTES: None
1.6.
Forest managers shall demonstrate a long-term commitment to adhere to the FSC
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 41 of 200
Principles and Criteria.
Applicability note to Criterion 1.6: This criterion is guided by FSC Policy and Guidelines: Partial
Certification for Large Ownerships (BM19.24), May 2000.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance.
1.6.a. Forest owners or managers provide Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
written statements of commitment to the
FSC Principles and Criteria. The
CNNF has not developed a written commitment to the FSC
commitment is stated in the management
standards (CAR 1/06).
plan [see 7.1], a document prepared for the
certification process, or another official
document.
1.6.b Forest owners or managers
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
document the reasons for seeking partial
certification.
All CNNF lands are included in this test evaluation.
1.6.c Forest owners or managers
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
document strategies and silvicultural
treatments for several harvest entries that
The 2004 Plan projects management actions and effects for
meet the FSC Principles and Criteria (see
a 100-year period.
Principle 7).
NOTES: CAR 1/06: CNNF shall develop a written commitment to the FSC P&C.
PRINCIPLE 2. TENURE AND USE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES - Long-term tenure and use
rights to the land and forest resources shall be clearly defined documented and legally
established.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
2.1 Clear evidence of long-term forest use rights to the land (e.g. land title, customary rights, or
lease agreements) shall be demonstrated. Forest managers shall demonstrate a long-term
commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and Criteria.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
2.1.a. Forest owners or managers
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
document the legal and customary rights
associated with the forest. These rights
The CNNF has thorough documentation on their legal and
include both those held by the party
customary rights associated with the forest.
seeking certification and those held by
other parties.
SmartWood was provided with two documents detailing this.
The first was titled “Historical Summary of Land Adjustment
and Classification, Chequamegon National Forest 19251962.” The second document was titled “Historical
Summary of Land Adjustment and Classification, Nicolet
National Forest 1925-1962.” The purpose of these
documents was to have available a concise summary on the
legal establishment of each forest and to have a record of
subsequent changes to the land base or classification of
activities.
SmartWood was shown the deeds or titles, and in some
cases abstracts (Record of Ownership), that contained a
summary of all conveyances and the Chain of Title for
CNNF properties. The Chain of Title details successive
conveyances, from the original acquisition to the present
point in time, for all properties and are kept in the respective
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 42 of 200
county courthouses of the land base. Microfilm copies are
kept in the Rhinelander Supervisor’s Office under the
auspices of the Lands and Recreation Program Manager
and in the Medford/Park Falls District Office under the
auspices of the Realty Specialist.
The process for using these documents and validation of
their existence were given to SmartWood by examining a
current case involving Agnes Bay Road, where it was in
question as to who owns the road and what rights a
landowner holds when accessing an inholding. The
microfilm of the deeds and abstracts are kept in a fireproof
safe in the Realty Specialist’s Office in the Medford/Park
Falls District Office. Also, kept there, and in every district
office, are the Land Status Atlases which contain a paper
summary of the landowner title and encumbrances (T&E) at
the time of purchase. The T&E section may contain
information used to pursue individual cases. In this case,
the description triggered the pulling of the microfilm, printing
of the deeds and abstracts and then initiating a call to the
county courthouse to verify the document wording. These
documents were presented to SmartWood as proof of
process. A summary of the findings are to be given to the
District Ranger who will then make a decision on the ingress
and egress on the road. Before a special use permit or
easement is issued the staff will have to make sure it is in
compliance with the standards and guidelines in the forest
plan.
The CNNF is mandated by law to provide a multitude of
ecosystem services to society which includes watershed
protection, plant and animal habitats, cultural history,
recreation, wood products, and research and demonstration.
These services allow for a large number of customary use
rights on the land base such as timber harvesting and
recreation. Recreational activities include hunting and
angling, hiking, cross-country skiing, ATV and snowmobile
use, as well as a number of non-consumptive activities such
as wildlife watching, wilderness exploration, picnicking,
swimming, and camping.
Tribal Bands also have special use rights associated with
the CNNF. There is a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Bands and the CNNF that defines the
standards that will be used by both parties during the Bands’
exercise of their rights. The MOU is a public document.
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(GLIFWC) confirmed the cooperation of the CNNF in this
regard.
All federally owned minerals are managed by the BLM and,
in the case of National Forest lands, the USDA Forest
Service manages surface occupancy. The BLM managed
subsurface non-common variety minerals include oil, gas,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 43 of 200
coal, precious metals, geo-thermal, and base metals, for
which there has been no extraction, only prospecting activity
on the CNNF. Common variety minerals include sand and
gravel, limestone, and dimension stone. The National
Forest has complete administrative authority for common
variety minerals. The CNNF has about 30 active sand and
gravel mining operations (170 acres) that are used for
CNNF’s local road and infrastructure maintenance. The
CNNF is required to supply itself with these materials and it
has discretion as to when and where it will develop these
resources.
2.1.b. Affected land boundaries are clearly
identified on the ground by the forest owner
or manager prior to commencement of
management activities.
By law, subsurface mineral rights take precedence over
surface rights, whereby the owner has the right of access to
the mineral estate and the right to develop it as established
by various laws and case law history. On the CNNF, some
of the mineral estate is owned by the federal government
through acquired lands, none of which is subject to the 1872
mining law (i.e., you can not stake a claim on the CNNF).
The rest is outstanding and reserved mineral rights owned
by state and local governments, private individuals, and
corporations. The State of Wisconsin has a Dormant
Mineral Rights law that applies to reserved and outstanding
mineral rights allowing rights to the mineral estate to revert
back to the surface owner by filing a Statement of Mineral
Claim. The CNNF does file Statements of Mineral Claim on
dormant mineral rights. Ownership information resides in
paper land status atlases and deed records in the offices of
the CNNF and the county courthouses.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Priorities for boundary line establishment and maintenance
are in place, with the highest priorities given to those areas
due for management or where legal issues occur. All areas
are mapped, with boundary lines denoted. In some areas
without management activity, where there is not enough
control (i.e., no known section corner) and costs for
surveying a small area are unreasonable, the boundary
lines are not formally established. However, some type of
encroachment or pending forest management activity would
cause the CNNF to run the line.
In accordance with the forest plan, boundary lines need to
be marked to standard before project activities are
performed. Therefore, they are marked for all project EISs.
When project EAs are undertaken the District Forester
requests that a boundary line be run. Currently, District
Rangers are providing the Forest Land Surveyor with
enough lead time to enable the CNNF to run boundary lines
before timber is marked and cut. Where possible, EAs are
grouped so that boundary line work can be accomplished
more efficiently.
NOTES: None
2.2. Local communities with legal or customary tenure or use rights shall maintain control, to the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 44 of 200
extent necessary to protect their rights or resources, over forest operations unless they
delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies.
Applicability Note: For the planning and management of publicly owned forests, the local community is
defined as all residents and property owners of the relevant jurisdiction.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
2.2.a. The forest owner or manager allows Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
legal and customary rights to the extent
that they are consistent with the The CNNF allows legal and customary uses on the land
conservation of the forest resource and the (e.g., camping, dispersed recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking,
objectives stated in the management plan.
horseback riding, mountain biking). Trails for motorized and
non-motorized uses are common. Dozens of campgrounds
provide opportunities for lakeside recreation. Many more
lakes and rivers are accessible at boat and canoe landings.
There are over 300 wildlife species known to inhabit the
CNNF some time during their life cycle. These species
provide users with a wide variety of recreational
opportunities, such as hunting and wildlife viewing. These
uses are recognized in the forest management plan as
being consistent with the conservation of the natural
resource base, when appropriately managed, and the forest
plan objectives.
Due to the amount of attention given recreation in the FEIS
and LRMP, coupled with NVUM visitation results showing
increased use, it is apparent that recreation is a major
priority for the CNNF. One of the major challenges is
balancing the management of recreation activities among
users and between recreational uses and the concern for
the natural resource landbase. In the FEIS, access and
recreation was one of the four key items needing focus
when developing the LRMP. Some residents in these
communities have long depended on the forests for their
livelihood and recreation. New retirees in the area have
added to the demand for access to all the forest has to offer.
Challenges presented to the CNNF are manifested in the
stated goals for the forest. For example, stated goals in the
LRMP are to maintain diversity and quality of recreational
experiences with acceptable limits of change to ecosystem
stability and condition. The LRMP also has a goal to
provide opportunities for recreational, aesthetic, and
educational experiences within wilderness and Wilderness
Study Areas that are consistent with the values of those
areas.
A number of issues have arisen with ORV use, specifically
ATVs. There have been complaints concerning abuse of
the resource base, as well as cultural resource areas being
overrun. Some would like to see them banned entirely. On
the other hand, there are those that feel ORV use is being
overly restricted because the CNNF does not provide
enough trails for ATV use. These proponents want the trail
system expanded, also citing economic benefits from
allowing their use.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 45 of 200
To compound the issue, there are relatively few Law
Enforcement Officers to handle such a large land base, let
alone deal with just this issue. Law Enforcement Officers
interviewed confirmed the most common and disturbing
problems encountered involve ATVs. Written notices and
violation notices for improper ORV use numbered 72 in
2003 and 116 in 2005, evidence of both increasing
enforcement and ORV use. Another complication on this
issue is that the tradition on the Chequamegon side of the
Forest had no real restrictions for ATVs, whereas the Nicolet
side of the Forest always had a more restrictive policy.
Several stakeholders discussed problem ORV sites and the
test evaluation team did observe adverse impacts in some
of the areas visited.
The CNNF has made positive strides in controlling ATV use
since the 2004 Plan was implemented. These include a
prohibition of off road/off trail use, closure of the “Open 26”
play area, the 6-week spring closure, and the designation of
roads open to ATVs. The Forest intends to continue
working cooperatively with ATV user groups and WDNR to
develop information and education programs that encourage
responsible riding.
CNNF states that their law enforcement staffing is short by
one individual on the west side of the forest. CNNF also
notes that many of the District staff are also Forest
Protection Officers (FPO’s) and are able to write citations
and violation notices. In all, there are a total of
approximately 60 FPO’s forest-wide. Even so, given what
appears to be a limited enforcement staff available to
functionally police ORV use and the increasing use of ATVs
on the Forest, improper usage has the potential to cause
significant negative environmental effects that are
inconsistent with the conservation of the Forest resource
(CAR 2/06).
2.2.b. On ownerships where customary
use rights or traditional and cultural
areas/sites exist, forest owners or
managers consult with concerned groups
in the planning and implementation of
forest management activities.
As stated in Indicator 2.1.a., Tribal Bands also have special
use rights associated with the CNNF that the Bands
retained by treaty with the federal government. The Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
confirmed the cooperation of the CNNF in this regard. To
ensure these rights are consistent with the conservation of
the forest, the CNNF staff provides the Tribes, through
GLIFWC, information on proposed forest management
activities and through dialogue come to a consensus that is
mutually beneficial to both parties.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Prior to implementing management practices, the CNNF
consults with Tribal concerns (e.g., GLIFWC, individual
Tribes negotiating on their own) on their customary use
rights (e.g., fishing, hunting, gathering) and relevant cultural
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 46 of 200
areas/sites. Tribal contacts confirmed this.
Also, through public stakeholder input mandated in the
NEPA process there are multiple opportunities for
stakeholders and other interested parties to provide input on
proposed CNNF management activities. In the National
Visitor Use Monitoring studies, recreationists have
opportunities to voice their opinions on issues related to
recreational opportunities on the forest. Recreational
stakeholder inputs are gathered every five years and used
to adjust forest management strategies. Also, as stated in
the LRMP, the CNNF has as one of its objectives,
consultations with various groups and agencies. For
example, the intention is to consult with the Wisconsin and
Michigan Departments of Natural Resources on achieving
desired wildlife and fish population goals through
appropriate habitat management relative to forest
management activities.
NOTES: CAR 2/06: CNNF shall ensure that their strategies (e.g. education and enforcement capabilities)
are sufficient to protect the Forest resource from activity inconsistent with conserving the Forest
resources.
2.3. Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use
rights. The circumstances and status of any outstanding disputes will be explicitly considered
in the certification evaluation. Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant
number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
2.3.a. The forest owner or manager
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
maintains relations with community
stakeholders to identify disputes while still
The CNNF regularly communicates with various community
in their early stages. If disputes arise, the
stakeholder groups and special interest groups to promote
forest owner or manager initially attempts
and enhance use rights. The CNNF, as mandated by law,
to resolve them through open
has an extensive public input process they must follow. The
communication, negotiation, and/or
input from affected communities are documented and
mediation. If negotiation fails, existing
incorporated into their management, as appropriate. In
local, state, Federal, and tribal laws are
addition, The CNNF staff also reaches out to various
employed to resolve claims of land tenure
groups. For example, CNNF staff continually
(see Glossary).
communicates with GLIFWC to discuss issues related the
forest planning and management and its effects on Tribal
fishing, hunting, camping, and gathering rights. Other
contacts include recreationists through the periodic National
Visitor Use Monitoring studies. These contacts serve to
prevent any points of contention from escalating into full
blown disputes.
When other issues develop (e.g., adjacent landowner
boundary line disputes, timber theft) CNNF staff, and when
necessary law enforcement staff, attempt to resolve the
matter through negotiated settlement. Most violations
concern timber theft related to firewood collection, trash and
debris dumping, and off road vehicle/ snowmobile/ATV use
(921 incident reports since January 2003). An Offense
Search Summary was provided to the auditors detailing
road and trail violations (257 since January 2003). CNNF’s
law enforcement officers use their discretion, and may give
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 47 of 200
verbal warning for first time offenders (85 since January
2003). When serious issues of any kind remain unresolved,
the staff will eventually direct the matter to the Office of the
General Counsel, who will provide legal opinions and
services related to the problem. On fish and wildlife issues,
the CNNF works with Wisconsin DNR Conservation
Officers.
From the mail surveys, 86.6% of respondents felt the CNNF
was in compliance with laws and regulations relating to
forest management activities. A majority (61.9%) also felt
that the CNNF responded satisfactorily to public inquires on
management activities.
2.3.b. The forest owner or manager
provides information to the certification
body regarding unresolved and/or ongoing
disputes over tenure and use-rights.
In some instances there may be an immediate need for the
involvement of law enforcement (e.g., egregious boundary
lines issues). The USDA Forest Service is authorized by
federal law to enter into contractual agreements with local
and state law enforcement agencies for dedicated law
enforcement activities conducted on National Forest lands.
Local and state agencies are reimbursed for expenses
incurred during these activities.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The CNNF staff made available to the auditors information
on all unresolved and ongoing disputes.
Some issues arise when private dwellings encroach upon
the forest. In these cases, the lands staff and Supervisor’s
Office work directly with the District Ranger to resolve the
issue. These cases rarely go to litigation. The Small Tract
Act permits the USDA Forest Service to survey the land in
question, at the landowner’s expense unless the USDA
Forest Service does the work. The CNNF can then sell up to
10 acres of the property being used by the landowner to that
landowner.
Larger use-rights disputes arise on two levels, one at the
LRMP level and one at the project level. The forest plan
can, and has been, appealed. Appeals of the 2004 LRMP
were decided in favor of the LRMP and it remained
unchanged. The auditor was given documentation on the
appeals and the subsequent decisions in this regard.
At the project level, project EAs and EISs can be contested
in court once all appeals are exhausted. Historically, there
have been few EA appeals that were ruled in favor of the
appellant. Project EAs are not usually appealed unless the
project involves timber harvesting. In 2003, five EISs were
appealed and litigated, with two being resolved in court in
favor of CNNF and three found to be deficient in their
cumulative effects analysis.
Of the six legal issues brought by plaintiffs in the remaining
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 48 of 200
unresolved projects, five were ruled in favor of CNNF and
one was ruled in favor of the plaintiff (insufficient cumulative
effects analysis). For two of these projects, a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was developed.
For the third, the CNNF staff is currently deciding how to
address the cumulative effect analysis. During the audit, the
FSEIS appeal period closed on one project, with the FSEIS
being appealed just before the deadline.
NOTES: None
PRINCIPLE 3. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS - THE LEGAL AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO OWN, USE AND MANAGE THEIR LANDS, TERRITORIES, AND
RESOURCES SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AND RESPECTED.
PRINCIPLE APPLICABILITY NOTES: APPLICABILITY NOTE TO PRINCIPLE 3: THE TERMS
"TRIBES", "TRIBAL" OR "AMERICAN INDIAN GROUPS" IN INDICATORS UNDER PRINCIPLE 3
INCLUDE ALL INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN THE US, GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS, WHO MAY BE
ORGANIZED IN RECOGNIZED OR UNRECOGNIZED TRIBES, BANDS, NATIONS, NATIVE
CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER NATIVE GROUPS.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories unless they
delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies.
Criterion Level Remarks: Not Applicable. CNNF does not manage Tribal lands.
3.1.a. On tribal lands, forest management
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
and planning includes a process for input
by tribal members in accordance with their
CNNF does not manage Tribal lands.
laws and customs.
3.1.b. Forest management on tribal lands
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
is delegated or implemented by an
authorized tribal governing body.
CNNF does not manage Tribal lands.
NOTES: None
3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or diminish, either directly or indirectly, the resources
or tenure rights of indigenous peoples.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance.
3.2.a. Forest owners or managers identify
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
and contact American Indian groups that
have customary use rights or other legal
As stated in the LRMP, and related to the auditor by CNNF
rights to the management area and invite
employees, it is the intention of the CNNF to consult with
their participation in the forest planning
Tribes and Bands and intertribal agencies (e.g., GLIFWC,
processes, appropriate to the scale and
which represents 11 Tribes and Bands) during decisionintensity of the operation. (see also
making processes related to forest management. This
Criterion 4.4.)
includes considering the effects of natural resource
management decisions on the ability of Tribes and Bands to
exercise gathering rights. Site-specific project analyses
conducted by CNNF address how project proposals may
affect the ability of tribes to exercise hunting, fishing or
gathering rights.
There are 12 federally recognized tribes and Bands in
central and northern Wisconsin. Not all Tribes and Bands
are interested in working with the CNNF. Seven tribes have
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).
Communications are directed to the Tribes and Bands either
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 49 of 200
through intertribal agencies (e.g., GLIFWC for Chippewa or
Ojibwe Tribes only) or with specific Tribes directly [e.g., Lac
du Flambeau (LdF)], often through the THPO.
On the CNNF, the tribal liaison or Forest Heritage Program
Manager, District Rangers, and/or archeologists facilitate
the process for distributing information and documentation
and thereafter gathering input from tribal members on forest
management activities. In addition, the CNNF periodically
meets with the Tribes to discuss issues of mutual interest.
Tribal and Band members can also attend public
stakeholder meetings. Tribal representatives are informed
through letters and verbal contact. While communication is
channeled through normal processes, the level of contact
goes above what is provided to the general public due to the
working relationship that the CNNF has with Tribes and
Bands. . Documentation was provided to the auditor in the
form of a reply from a THPO to a letter previously sent to the
THPO by the archaeologist concerning a restoration project.
The reply indicated that the project would have no effect on
historic or cultural resources significant to the tribe.
However, in a conversation with a THPO and other Tribal
representatives, it was expressed that the CNNF does not
effectively communicate with the Tribes on other projects
they feel will affect Tribal interests (OBS 2/06).
During the audit visit, the tribal liaison position was vacant.
It was expressed to the auditor by Tribal members that they
were dismayed at not being consulted when the job
description was developed to replace the liaison. Their
perception is that this position will be filled by a public
relations person, not an individual solely concerned with
Tribal interests.
3.2.b. Steps are taken during the forest
management planning process and
implementation to protect tribal resources
that may be directly affected by certified
operations such as adjacent lands, bodies
of water, critical habitats, and riparian
corridors as well as other resource uses
such as rights to hunt, fish, or gather.
Several CNNF employees thought that the transfer of
information could be packaged more appropriately for the
Tribes. GLIFWC confirmed this notion by indicating that,
while they want to see all information and documentation,
summarizations of lengthy materials would benefit the
Tribes and the large number of individuals who want to read
these materials. A Tribe, not represented by GLIFWC, also
had this request. Another Tribal representative said that the
Tribes would prefer to have fewer generic correspondences
and more face-to-face consultations where key CNNF
personnel, relative to the issue, could sit down with Tribal
representatives. (OBS 2/06).
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
For federal agencies, such as the USDA Forest Service,
legislation dictates much of what is done to protect Tribal
resources. For example, the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 1992, further directed
federal agencies such as the USDA Forest Service to
establish preservation programs in line with their goals and
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 50 of 200
objectives for the forest and gauge the effects of their
program activities on historic and cultural areas of
significance.
According to the CNNF staff, 20 resource areas have been
designated as Special Management Areas (SMA) with an
MA 8F designation. Under the MA 8F designation, a site is
characterized as having unique areas of physical, biological,
and cultural features of forest or regional significance and
includes representative examples of natural, historical,
paleontological, and archeological values. The LRMP
describes the standards and guidelines for protecting these
areas.
CNNF staff also periodically asks Tribal representatives to
comment on sites nominated for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). For example, in 2005 the LdF
Band and the Lac Vieux Desert (LVD) Band were asked to
review the NRHP nomination of the Butternut-Franklin
Lakes Archeologist District. The Bands voiced their support
for the nomination.
When forest management activities are scheduled, the
CNNF staff consults with the Tribes and Bands to inform
them of pending activities and solicit their opinions. For
example, the LRMP states that when restoring large woody
debris by annually treating some lakes with tree drops
and/or cribs, the staff will consult with the Tribes and Bands
when proposing this treatment on lakes where spear fishing
occurs.
AC 3.2.1. Solicitation of tribal collaboration
is tailored to incorporate cultural sensitivity
and awareness and will be undertaken with
a commitment to honor government to
government relationships.
In 2004, a MOU between the CNNF and the Forest County
Potawatomi, the LVD Band, and the Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community was developed with the intent of assisting Tribal
interest in the use and application of GPS and GIS
methodologies as applied to mapping and management of
cultural resources, all in an effort to further protect sensitive
resources. In addition, CNNF policy will permit Tribal
representatives to review heritage records and documents
and photocopy those which are relevant to Tribal areas of
interest.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
As stated in the LRMP, it is the intention of the CNNF staff
to honor the U.S. Government trust responsibility and treaty
obligations toward Indian Tribes and Bands within a
government-to-government relationship. As a result, the
CNNF provides information to tribal organizations and
individual Tribes and Bands on forest management planning
of activities.
On the CNNF, the tribal liaison or Forest Heritage Program
Manager, District Rangers, and/or archeologists facilitate
the process for distributing information and documentation
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 51 of 200
and thereafter gathering input from tribal members on forest
management activities. In addition, the CNNF periodically
meets with the Tribes to discuss issues of mutual interest.
Tribal and Band members can also attend public
stakeholder meetings.
AC 3.2.2. Consultation techniques used for
soliciting tribal input are adapted as
necessary to achieve effective
communication and collaboration, and will
include both written and verbal
correspondence.
As previously stated, interviews with GLIFWC, indicated that
they were appreciative of the information provided but
desired a more condensed version of some of the longer
documents for those who do not care to read documents in
their entirety. However, one Tribe indicated that they felt
they were not receiving all the information they should be
receiving. In addition, it was stated that CNNF staff, who act
as liaisons with the Tribes and Bands need additional
training to be able to better communicate with the Tribes,
and this would include cultural and sensitivity training.
Tribal contacts revealed that past communications ran from
very cooperative and sensitive to insensitive.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The document titled “Programmatic Agreement Among The
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest, and the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation
Officer, Wisconsin Historic Society, Regarding Forest
Service Activities and Consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer” was developed in accordance with
NHPA section 106 and serves as the consultation protocol
for the CNNF. It includes the types of consultation
techniques that can be used for soliciting Tribal input aimed
at achieving effective communication and collaboration for
both formal (e.g., following standards and guidelines for
reporting and database entry) and informal (e.g., using
electronic media) consultation, coordination, and information
exchange between the CNNF, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and Native American Tribes and
Bands. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is the
first and only federal entity created solely to address historic
preservation issues. While the CNNF is technically following
the law, there needs to be refinements in some techniques
to make communications more effective.
CNNF staff maintains a list of appropriate contact persons
for tribes, bands, and tribal representatives. An extensive
list was provided to SmartWood for the test evaluation.
CNNF staff participates in a number of training activities and
meetings related to enhancing the exchange of information
and perspectives needed to interact with the tribes and
bands.
NOTES: OBS 2/06: CNNF could provide information and documentation on forest management activities
to Tribal entities in a way that conforms to that desired by those entities (i.e., both full documentation and
summaries of lengthy material). In addition, CNNF staff could ensure that communication, training, hiring,
and other actions taken to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CNNF and Tribal entities
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 52 of 200
are occurring.
3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples
shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such peoples, and recognized and protected by
forest managers.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance.
3.3.a. Forest owners or managers make Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
systematic efforts to identify areas of
cultural,
historical,
and/or
religious The CNNF Heritage Program staff make systematic efforts
significance. They invite participation of to identify areas of cultural, historical, and/or religious
tribal representatives (or other appropriate significance. These activities include: 1) surveys to identify
persons, where tribal entities are lacking) cultural resources, 2) protection of documented cultural
in the identification of current or resources, 3) evaluation to determine significance (e.g.,
traditionally significant sites within the does the site merit NRHP status), 4) mitigation when
forest proposed for certification.
avoidance from forest activity is impossible, and 5)
interpretation for the public benefit. The survey
methodology employed by the CNNF staff has been agreed
to and accepted by the Wisconsin SHPO.
Currently, there is one archaeologist permanently employed
by the CNNF. This individual is assisted by one permanent
full-time archaeological technician. Further, there is a
student intern currently enrolled as a graduate student in
anthropology specializing in archaeology. This individual
will receive a Master’s degree in 2008, and then be
converted to a permanent full-time archaeologist on the
CNNF. Because the staff is small, the CNNF is able to
accomplish a significant amount of historic preservationrelated services through contracting. For example, they are
currently involved in a 5-year "indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity" contract with a full service cultural resource
management firm. The firm under contract has all the
specialists needed (e.g., archaeologists, historians,
architectural historians), and each is available to the CNNF
through the development of contractual task orders. The
staff believes they have accomplished a significant amount
of work through contracts, partnerships (e.g., Wisconsin
Historical Society), and voluntary services (e.g., Passport in
Time volunteers). As of September 2006, 2,500 cultural
resources have been documented; however, only 220 have
been thoroughly processed.
One THPO interviewed felt the firm contracted by CNNF to
perform cultural resource work was a reputable one that
does good work, but that overall these sites were not
receiving all the attention they deserve from the firm and the
CNNF. It was stated that the CNNF was not doing as good a
job as possible in identifying historical sites and the impacts
from management activities on these sites. This
assessment was based more on the allocation of resources
than from the standpoint of quality of work. No other tribal
representatives contacted had a similar opinion. One mail
survey respondent felt that some resources were being
damaged from recreational use.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 53 of 200
3.3.b. Forest owners and managers
consult with tribal leaders (or other
appropriate persons, where tribal entities
are lacking) to develop mechanisms that
ensure forest management operations
protect from damage or interference those
areas described in 3.3.a. and incorporate
these special places into forest
management and operational plans.
3.3.c. Confidentiality of disclosures is
maintained in keeping with applicable laws
and the requirements of tribal
representatives.
There have been many successful cases of cooperation,
documented by the CNNF and confirmed in conversations
with Tribal members. For example, there was one incidence
where blasting for quartz crystals by the public was
impacting a site also used by the Potawatomi Tribe and the
THPO brought it to the attention of the CNNF staff. The
District Ranger met with the THPO and the elder council
concerning religious activities that take place here four times
per year. Actions were taken to protect the site (e.g.,
mapping, providing a MA 8F designation) and its resources
and the CNNF permitted the Tribe to use the site during
religious ceremonies. Although the Tribe did not have
exclusive rights to the site, it can now use what is known as
the Quartz Hill Special Management Area.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Twenty resource areas on the CNNF have been designated
as SMAs with an MA 8F designation. Many of these sites
contain sensitive Tribal resources and are protected based,
in part, on Tribal consultations. The LRMP describes the
standards and guidelines for protecting these areas. The
NRHP process is also used with the CNNF soliciting Tribal
and Band inputs for potential areas deserving designation.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The confidentiality of archaeological, historical, and cultural
sites are protected, in part. Disclosure of these areas is
exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The CNNF
does not disclose or identify cultural resources in the field so
as to not draw attention to them.
NOTES: None
3.4 Indigenous peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge
regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This
compensation is formally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before forest
operations commence.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
3.4.a. Forest owners or managers respect Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
the confidentiality of tribal knowledge and
assist in the protection of tribal intellectual
The CNNF respects the confidentiality of Tribal knowledge
property rights.
and, whether it is used in management decisions or not,
does not disclose it. Cooperation among the Tribes and the
CNNF on projects of mutual interest is the expressed, and
mandated, goal of both parties.
3.4.b. A written agreement is reached with Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
individual American Indians and/or tribes
prior to commercialization of their
There is no commercialization on the part of the CNNF of
indigenous intellectual property, traditional
indigenous intellectual property, traditional knowledge,
knowledge, and/or forest resources. The
and/or forest resources owned by the Tribes, therefore, no
individuals and/or tribes are compensated
written agreement exists. This was verified through
when such commercialization takes place.
stakeholder contacts.
NOTES: None
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 54 of 200
PRINCIPLE 4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND WORKERS' RIGHTS - FOREST MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS SHALL MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE LONG-TERM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELL
BEING OF FOREST WORKERS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
4.1
The communities within, or adjacent to, the forest management area should be given
opportunities for employment, training, and other services.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
4.1.a. Opportunities for employment,
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
contracting, procurement, processing, and
training are as good for non-local service
USDA Forest Service opportunities for employment,
providers as they are for local service
contracting, procurement, processing, and training are as
providers doing similar work.
good for non-local service providers as they are for locals.
For all USDA Forest Service employees, the same pay
scale, job description, benefits, and other related items
apply throughout the United States. Thus an employee’s
status as local or non-local is immaterial.
The CNNF advertises nationally for employees and through
the DEMO Authority, which goes to the public so anyone
can apply. The DEMO Handbook can be found in the
Forest Service Handbook 6109.16, Demonstration Project
Handbook.
The staff described several purchasing scenarios for goods
and services. For example, if Engineering needs gravel
hauled, this service is requested from the Integrated
Acquisition System (IAS), as a requisition that goes to a
Lead Purchasing Agent (LPA). The LPA decides who gets
the order within the CNNF staff, a purchasing agent or a
contract specialist. All requisitions must be prepared and
processed appropriately to ensure that the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are being followed.
Purchases of less than $25,000 require a competitive
bidding process with two or more vendors. There is a
bidders list primarily consisting of local vendors. There is a
Request for Quote form that the USDA Forest Service uses
to schedule items and supply services needed from small
local vendors
The CNNF uses an Advance Acquisition Plan to assist with
purchasing items over $25,000. Past work plans are used
to come up with current work plans. The LPA gets the work
plan and looks to see who is assigned to it, and ties it into
an Acquisition Plan number with a work plan number. The
assigned purchasing agent then decides how to handle the
purchase. Larger purchases of more than $25,000 are
made by advertising nationwide in the Federal Business
Opportunities (FBO) venue, unless specific socio-economic
program goals dictate otherwise.
The contractor stakeholder list consisted mostly of local
contractors. Timber sales are conducted and a number of
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 55 of 200
4.1.b. Forest work is packaged and
offered in ways that create quality work
opportunities for employees, contractors,
and their workers.
contractors, each with varying capabilities, are able to bid on
these jobs.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The extremely diverse activities engaged in by the USDA
Forest Service and CNNF staff (e.g., timber sales
administration, recreation management, wildlife
management) and contractors (e.g., timber harvesting,
archaeology) leads to quality and challenging work
opportunities.
USDA Forest Service criteria for hiring contractors evaluates
work quality based on past performance, references, and
price. The CNNF believes that contractor relations are
positive and stable and that contractors view the CNNF as
an employer of choice. This was validated by long-term
contractor re-bidding on the CNNF. An interview with an
employee of a local logging contractor verified that relations
have been long-term and stable for his employer. Forest
Service Manual 6100 (Personnel Management) and Forest
Service Handbook 6100 (Personnel Management) provide
guidelines for personnel practices.
All opportunities for employee advancement are made
available to all USDA Forest Service employees through its
competitive procedures for advertising all vacancy
announcements. Another process for doing this comes
under the Merit Promotion Procedures. Those eligible
include status (i.e., career or career-conditional) employees
and persons meeting special hiring authorities. The Merit
Promotion Plan can be found in the Forest Service
Handbook FSH 6109.12, Chapter 20 - Internal Placement.
The other outlet detailing employee advancement is the
DEMO Authority. Also, the CNNF staff occasionally
distributes inter-office correspondence on positions for
career or skill enhancement that are made available to
employees. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) sets the qualifications for each position, which is
based on education, specialized experience, or a
combination of both; solely on education; and/or whether
they are already a federal employee. Employees are paid
according to series (e.g., professional, technical,
administrative) or grade general schedule pay scale. There
are 10 steps for advancement within each level.
All full- or part-time USDA Forest Service employees with
employment exceeding 90 days are eligible to earn sick and
annual leave. The amount is determined by the leave
category they are in, but it is a minimum of four hours per biweekly pay period, which is pro-rated for part-time
employees. The federal government Federal Friendly
Family Leave Act is available to employees with certain
restrictions. Information on this Act can be found at:
ttp://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 56 of 200
Permanent employees are eligible to participate in a threetiered retirement package which is composed of The Federal
Employment Retirement System/Thrift Savings Plan/Social
Security. There are three retirement plans: Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS), Federal Employees Retirement
System (FERS), and CSRS Offset. Retirement benefits are
based on age and years of service at the time of retirement.
Life insurance is offered through the Federal Employees
Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) program and health insurance
benefits offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefit
program. Eligibility varies depending on your appointment
category. Each year there is an open period where
employees can change their benefit declarations.
Both USDA Forest Service employees and contractors are
encouraged to participate and provide input into decisionmaking processes. Contractors, who are more locally
involved, have access to their Technical Representative on
the CNNF to provide feedback. CNNF staff periodically
meets with contractors before jobs are undertaken and then
they confer during the job implementation. However, all
actions are performed within the constraints of procedures
and regulations under which the USDA Forest Service must
act.
Several current and past employees have expressed a
dissatisfaction and demoralization with the introduction of
“Enterprise Teams” where activities involved with these
groups were viewed as time consuming and inefficient.
There also exists an apprehension revolving around future
outsourcing for services. It was understood that moves
toward a centralized business plan by the USDA Forest
Service were going to be reevaluated after implementation
but several employees saw an “after the fact” approach as
counter productive (OBS 3/06).
Since USDA Forest Service employees are covered by
federal law, employment conditions are as good for nonlocal workers as they are for local workers doing the same
job. In addition the union makes sure there is a level playing
field for working conditions, benefits, and promotion. The
Human Resource Center also oversees these issues.
4.1.c. Forest owners or managers
The USDA Forest Service provides a number of training
opportunities for its employees to enhance their on-the-job
skills and promote safety in the workplace. An extensive
database is kept to track training accomplishments and
needs. This documentation was provided to the audit team
(e.g., on Defensive Driving-Training). Every first
Wednesday of the month there are Safety and Health
meetings held forest-wide. Three years of documentation
were provided to the auditor.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 57 of 200
contribute to public education about
forestry practices.
The USDA Forest Service and the CNNF provide a number
of educational opportunities such as interpretation,
internships, cooperative student opportunities, and
scholarships.
Three programs are currently in place:
1. The Student Temporary Employment Program
(STEP) provides an opportunity for enrolled college
students to earn money, continue their education,
train with professionals, and combine academic
study with on-the-job experience. Jobs are
available during summer breaks and offer a variety
of technical positions in areas as wildlife
management and hydrology.
2. The Student Career Experience Program (SCEP) is
the primary source for external recruitment for entrylevel hires in the USDA Forest Service, pending the
enrolled college student has performed up to
standards set for the position. It provides work
experience directly related to the student's
academic program or career goals.
3. The Student Intern Program- Student provides
internships, similar to SCEP, that are used to
diversity the workforce with traditionally
underrepresented groups, except that it provides
noncompetitive positions for 2 years to those who
have graduated college. Interns are hired with highlevel skills in science and silviculture.
All three programs are implemented in cooperation with the
U.S. Civil Rights Office. Program leaders for recruitment
liaison and develop relationships with land grant and
historically black universities, and recruit from Native
American Tribes. It is the District Rangers job to maintain
Tribal relationships and facilitate employment with Native
American community colleges. Northland College in
Ashland, WI provides a source of Asian student workers.
4.1.d. Forest owners or managers
participate and invest in the local economy
and civic activities.
The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland WI, is
owned by the USDA Forest Service, and managed in
cooperation with five other agencies and organizations.
Educational and interpretive opportunities are offered by the
Center to the public (e.g., fishing clinic for students from
Washburn High School). Exhibits (e.g., Whittlesey Creek
NWR display) and workshops (e.g., Regional Wisconsin
History Day Teacher Training Workshop) are scheduled
throughout the year. Visitation averages over 150,000 per
year.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Interviews with CNNF employees find them to be actively
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 58 of 200
engaged in local community organizations and activities.
The CNNF staff provided a lengthy list of work-related, civic,
and community development activities engaged in by the
CNNF employees and their partners from 2003 to present.
Key activities take place at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center (e.g., traveling exhibits, special events, youth
education programs (K-12), teacher/educator workshops).
A listing was provided by district. For example, 14 activities
were listed for the Eagle River-Florence District and
Florence Wild Rivers Interpretive Center (e.g., legislator
tours, interpretive talks, trail maintenance with the Ruff
Grouse Society, etc.). Individual employees also reported
on activities they take part in. For example, the Forest
Geologist has participated in local County Forest Field Days
to provide local private landowners information on use of
soil survey data in forest management and non-native,
invasive plant species of concern and how to control them.
He participates in a local land use planning (Smart Growth)
effort. He also served as a group facilitator to guide local
citizen participation in development of local land use plans
(done outside the CNNF and not as an agency
representative). One District Ranger has supported local
service groups (e.g., Lions Trail Association) to use National
Forest trails for regional dog sled racing and snow-shoe
racing events.
All CNNF facilities (e.g., offices, campgrounds) are regularly
maintained and updated. All office machinery, copiers
printers, fax machines, are maintained. If problems arise
the staff tries to fix the item, otherwise they call the
Information Services Organization (ISO). The ISO will call
for help from a vendor list of specific service providers in the
local area. Equipment, especially vehicles, undergo regular
inspections and periodic replacement.
4.1.e. Employee compensation and hiring
practices meet or exceed the prevailing
local norms for work within the forest
industry that requires equivalent education,
skills, and experience.
There are 10 Supervisor and District Offices in local
communities. CNNF works with local entities to access
services (e.g., towns, counties). Activities and related
purchasing of goods and services provide an economic
enhancement for local communities. CNNF provided a list of
cooperative service agreements during the field visit.
Communities in which National Forest land resides also
receive funds from two sources: the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes and either 25% of timber harvested for a Fiscal Year
or a “Full Payment” under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The USDA Forest Service, and hence the CNNF’s, pay
schedule is based on OPM job classifications. Salaries are
competitive with those offered in private industry for the
same job positions. The OPM sets the qualifications for
each position description, which could be based on
education, specialized experience, or a combination both;
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 59 of 200
4.1.f. Forest owners or managers assure
that contractors, subcontractors,
intermediaries, and persons hired by them
are covered and protected by all state and
Federal labor laws regarding
discrimination, wages, benefits, and other
conditions of employment.
solely on education; and/or whether they are already a
federal employee.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
There are two primary areas of contractual agreements,
timber sale and service contracts. Contracts contain
clauses specific to legal coverage and protection. Contracts
are established with the intent of complying with all
applicable state and federal laws. Standard clauses are
used to cover specific legal coverage and protection and to
specify items such as labor rates. Contractors and subcontractors make a bond payment as do sub-contractors
and suppliers.
The CNNF staff monitor legal compliance by contractors,
subcontractors, and other persons hired to work on the
forest.
AC 4.1.1. A comprehensive listing of all
applicable laws, regulations and
administrative requirements and their
applicability to USFS forest management
shall be maintained with listed documents
made accessible to all employees.
AC 4.1.2. Migrant worker conditions
(including transit to and from work sites)
are monitored by both contractors and
Forest Service personnel for compliance
with USFS policies and contract
specifications, applicable labor laws and
other associated regulations.
Employees are not discriminated against because of
gender, race, religion, age, and disability with respect to
hiring, dismissal, remuneration, and other conditions of
employment. This protection is guaranteed under Executive
Order 11246, as amended, by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The CNNF has an Intranet site, available to all employees,
with listings or links to, all applicable laws, regulations, and
administrative requirements and their applicability to USDA
Forest Service and the CNNF. Employees can access the
information on the OPM web site, benefits and retirement
options, human resource issues, and a new employee
orientation. The auditor received a tour of the Intranet site
during the field visit.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
USDA Forest Service contracting representatives take the
OSHA 10-Hour training workshop to orient them on general
issues related to the forest industry and contracting and to
cover such items as how to navigate the USFS Manual and
to become educated on how the USDA Forest Service
works with OSHA regulations. This workshop is provided on
a one-time basis to employees. Over the last two years, the
CNNF has given two classes, with an additional class
scheduled in the near future. This training relates strongly
to migrant worker issues.
The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection
Act (MSAWPA) of 1999 mandates worker protections and
pertains, in part, to forestry. Those performing tree planting,
timber stand improvement work, wildland fire fighting, and
other field activities along with retirees and other seasonal
workers are given legal protections. Most migrant workers
are involved with tree planting on the CNNF. The CNNF
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 60 of 200
uses a 7-page check list to ensure adequate lodging and
sanitation conditions exist for migrant and seasonal workers.
During worker solicitation and hiring, contractors must
obtain a Certificate of Registration from the DOL or an
authorized state agency. CNNF staff notifies the DOL and
OSHA of the award contract and a MSAWPA poster needs
to be posted at the job site in English and Spanish. It is
required that the foreman speaks English. The contractor
needs to carry the Certificate at all times. Pre-work
meetings occur to disclose the full terms of employment,
personal protective equipment, first aid, supplies, motor
vehicle safety, transport, and lodging to employees.
Solicitation addresses language and this becomes part of
the contract. There are also further protective stipulations in
MSAWPA for transportation and housing.
NOTES: OBS 3/06: The USDA Forest Service and the CNNF could look to their employees for inputs and
comments on the ongoing centralization of services and the drive toward more efficient operations before
implementing such actions. This would include the “Enterprise Team” concept.
4.2 Forest management should meet or exceed all applicable laws and/or regulations covering
health and safety of employees and their families.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
4.2.a. The forest owner or manager and
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
their contractors develop and implement
safety programs and procedures.
CNNF does not require logger training, although programs
are available in the State (e.g., FISTA which is
headquartered in Rhinelander, WI). CNNF requires
contractors and their staff to comply with all state and
federal laws, particularly with OSHA regulations. CNNF
does not sponsor training programs for loggers. CNNF sale
administration staff have attended training in OSHA
requirements and have a three-stage process for
monitoring and enforcing OSHA compliance on harvest
sites. Forest Service Manual 6700 (Safety and Health
Program) and Forest Service Handbook (6700 Safety and
Health Program) provide guidelines for CNNF employee
safety. Safety clauses are included in forest work contracts,
and examples were provided to SmartWood.
Each position on CNNF has a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA)
performed that documents hazards that can be
encountered by the position and describes hazard
mitigation procedures and required training. Safety records
are maintained in a central database. CNNF conducts
accident investigations (i.e., safety reviews) on all incidents.
CNNF provided a listing of the Job Hazard Analyses that
are in place for CNNF staff to the auditor. Training and
safety records for CNNF staff were fully reviewed during the
test evaluation.
The database on forest safety and health training received
by CNNF employees is sent to the Forest Safety Officer.
The Officer can run queries on defensive driving, chain saw
use, first aid, CPR, snowmobile use qualifications, ATV use
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 61 of 200
qualifications, and the operation of a cross cut saw, to
name a few. Several queries were run and provided to the
auditor.
The Equipment Specialist provided a detailed process
description and documentation on how the machinery and
equipment used on the forest is maintained to a fully
operable and safe condition. Accident prevention clauses
include an erosion control spill plan.
The Safety and Wellness Committee (SWELL) deals with
safety issues and includes a union representative on the
committee. The Forest Safety Officer develops topics and
program specialist policies for safety related to such areas
as driving and chain saw use.
NOTES: None
4.3 The rights of workers to organize and voluntarily negotiate with their employers shall be
guaranteed as outlined in Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labor Organization
(ILO).
Applicability Note to Criterion 4.3: Compliance with this criterion can be accomplished with guidance
from FSC Certification and ILO Conventions: FSC Policy Paper and Guidelines. May 20, 2002.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
4.3.a. Forest workers are free to associate
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
with other workers for the purpose of
advocating for their own employment
Employees (e.g., clerical, technical, professional staff) on
interests.
the CNNF have the option of joining the National Federation
of Federal Employees (NFFE), International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2165. CNNF
has a Partnership Agreement with NFFE. The CNNF Union
President stated that most employees were in the union.
There is a union representative for the whole forest (i.e.,
Union President) who was interviewed by the auditor. In
addition, there is a union representative in each District
Office. There is also a steward at each administrative office
and at least one from each District Office. If employees are
eligible to be in the union, but decide not to join, the union
will still represent their interests.
4.3.b. Forest owners or managers and their Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
contractors develop effective and culturally
sensitive mechanisms to resolve disputes Generally, informal mechanisms are used to resolve
between workers and management.
disputes between employees and management and may
vary among the District Offices depending on the values,
views, and ideas of current personnel. Most disputes
involve employee conduct, performance, and work
conditions. There have been more conduct-related
incidences rather than performance-related incidences, with
some incidences related to sexual harassment and the
misuse of the telephone.
The CNNF uses an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to
resolve conflicts with the assistance of a third-party. If there
is a dispute between an employee and management that
can’t be resolved, it then goes to the union. A union
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 62 of 200
representative will attempt to assist in resolving the dispute.
If management has a complaint against an employee for
unfit conduct, then management can come to the union as
well and a union representative will be present to help
resolve the problem. A typical action may be documented
in an ADR letter by the union representative that may call
for an employee suspension, or in less serious cases, the
employee may be asked to donate some vacation time. In
addition, employees can call an 800 number for advice and
free counseling sessions, in some cases, in lieu of
discipline.
Employees can file a pre-grievance based on procedures in
their union contract. This sets in place a 21-day period to
solve the problem. A mediator is brought in for a face-toface, more formal venue to resolve the issue. Regions 8
and 9 have a national mediator group trained in mediation
that the CNNF staff can utilize when there are more
complicated disputes.
If there is no agreement, then employees file a formal
grievance, in writing. This is filed with the Regional
Forester, who makes a determination to management or
exercises the management decision. If this is not
agreeable, either party may go to arbitration. The process
from here follows federal labor relations authority
regulations. A mutually agreeable arbitrator is chosen out
of a list kept by the CNNF, and then the process goes to a
formal arbitration hearing.
On the CNNF, the Union President revealed that In the last
five years there have been no disputes that have gone to
arbitration.
Training continually occurs on the CNNF for dispute
resolution through the Training Partnership Council, where
training is held to work out issues ahead of time. Part of it
is to learn to work together in a more harmonious fashion.
In 2006, the USDA Forest Service Chief’s Award was given
to the CNNF’s Labor Union Training Partnership Council on
Relations. The Council consists of five union officers and
five management representatives who meet quarterly on
workplace issues. A $20,000 grant, which came from the
Award, was received by the union for use for training
supervisors and union stewards. Over ½ of the money was
used to train mediators who work at the pre-grievance level.
Currently, there is a need for more mediators with training
at the forest level.
The USDA Forest Service and contractors are protected
under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), which creates a
comprehensive system for resolving disputes between a
contractor and a procuring agency relating to the
performance of most procurement contracts. For both, if
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 63 of 200
there are safety violations, pay issues, or fraud, staff or
contractors can report to the CNNF contracting officer
representative or inspector. Depending on the severity of
the issue, the contracting officer may be able to resolve the
issue. If it is more serious, then the CNNF Supervisory
Contract Specialist gets involved.
If there is no resolution to the contractual requirement
specifications, the staff member or contractor can write a
formal letter stating the problem. The CNNF Supervisory
Contract Specialist will examine the facts and make a
decision. This would normally resolve the issue unless the
contractor wants to appeal and take the case to the court
system (i.e., United States Court of Federal Claims).
There are other dispute resolution processes that work to
prevent issues from arising. For example, the Region 9
office has an employee relation manager who can be
brought in as consultant to assist in team building on the
forest. Region 9 has a pilot of their own to bring in a trainer
who will solicit employees to become pre-grievance
facilitators, who could then develop a group that would work
to minimize conflicts.
NOTES: None
4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social
impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups directly affected by
management operations.
Applicability Note to Criterion 4.4: People and groups directly affected by management operations
may include: employees and contractors of the landowner, neighbors, fishers and hunters,
recreationalists, users of local water, and processors of forest products.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
4.4.a. On lands with multiple owners, a
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
process is provided that assures the
opportunity for fair and reasonable input
The CNNF issues a Schedule of Proposed Actions on a
from the landowners and/or shareholders.
quarterly basis to inform the public of upcoming projects
and their opportunity to provide comments. Project
proposals and decisions are posted on the CNNF web site
on a regular basis.
CNNF lands are managed in consultation with American
Indian rights and programs as interpreted by court
decisions, U.S. Congressional law, and in executive orders
and other actions of the President and Executive Branch of
the U.S. Government.
The FEIS describes all consultation processes and
stakeholder feedback utilized in developing the 2004
LRMP. This involved consultation and information
exchanges with communities, individuals, local
governments, including counties, agencies, NGOs, and
regional tribes and bands. Forest management issues also
spanned administrative and regional boundaries by
collaborating with other national forests and other federal
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 64 of 200
agencies. In sum, all stakeholders are considered and
have a fair chance to provide inputs into management
planning.
4.4.b. Input is sought in identifying
significant sites of archeological, cultural,
historical, or community importance, that
are to be designated as special
management zones or otherwise protected
during operations.
4.4.c.
Viewpoints and feedback are
solicited from people and groups directly
affected by forest management operations
and its associated environmental and
aesthetic effects (e.g., logging, burning,
spraying, and traffic). Significant concerns
are addressed in management policies and
plans.
4.4.d. Forest owners or managers of large
and mid-sized (see Glossary) forests
provide opportunities for people directly
affected by management operations to
provide input into management planning.
4.4.e. For public forests, consultation will
include the following components:
Individuals or groups have the option to appeal certain
environmental projects. 36 CFR 215 and recent guidance
from the USDA Forest Service Washington D.C. office
address the appeal process and regulations.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF consults with cultural (e.g., GLIFWC, Tribal THPOs,
independent Tribes), historic (e.g., Wisconsin Historical
Society), and archaeological professionals to identify
significant sites. The CNNF contracts a number of
archaeological services to a local firm. In addition, a
number of other programs are utilized to assist with site
identification and protection. One example cited is the
“Passport in Time” volunteer program, which utilizes the
public in heritage resource management projects on
National Forests. Many projects include archaeological
excavation, site mapping and monitoring, and restoration
work.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
The USDA Forest Service is mandated by law to
incorporate public participation in project development and
implementation. Stakeholder meetings and consultations
are held to solicit inputs and concerns in regard to forest
management activities. Project-level activity notifications
are available via the Internet (Schedule of Proposed
Actions) and are provided by mailings.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
“Appendix A-Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public
Involvement” of the FEIS describes in detail the public
consultation process for the 2004 Plan. For example,
tribes, other federal agencies, State and local governments,
individuals, and organizations helped identify LRMP
revision issues. CNNF hosted a series of open house
meetings when the Notice of Intent was issued. Meetings
provided information about the LRMP revision process and
gathered public input on the scope of the pending
management decisions. Forest planning open houses,
newsletters, and news releases informed the public about
the progress of the revision. Public input helped shape
alternatives considered during the revision process.
Following release of the proposed LRMP and DEIS, 10
informational open houses and five formal public hearings
were held. The 90-day comment period was extended for
an extra 30 days. Approximately 3,000 unique responses
were received with multiple comments on Draft documents.
Also see Indicator 4.4.a findings.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 65 of 200
Note: ‘The public’ includes people and
groups directly affected by management
operations and all citizens of the relevant
jurisdiction.
Applicability Note: For the purposes of
indicator 4.4.e each numbered component
should be scored separately.
1. Legislative and historical mandates are
included in the plan, and provisions are
made for their accomplishment.
2. Clearly defined and accessible methods
for public participation are provided in both
the strategic (long-range) and tactical
(short-range) planning processes, including
initial adoption and subsequent
amendments.
Applicability Note: Strategic plans may be
very general. Tactical plans are specific
and describe candidate stands for
proposed silvicultural activities.
3. Public notification is sufficient to allow
interested citizens of the affected jurisdiction
and/or other people and groups directly
affected by management operations the
chance to learn of upcoming opportunities for
public review and/or comment on the
proposed management.
4. The final planning decisions are based
on legal mandate, public input, credible
scientific analysis, and the productive
capacity of the land and are made by
professional employees, hired by the
public, or other legally authorized parties.
5. An accessible and affordable appeals
process to planning decisions is available.
Note: FSC certification does not preclude any
individual or group from seeking legislative or
judicial relief.
Pertinent legal mandates are included in planning
documentation (e.g., FEIS, LRMP). In addition, listings
and/or links to legislative and historical mandates are
available on the CNNF Internet web site, and the CNNF
Intranet web site, which is available to all employees.
Through documentation and interviews with employees and
external stakeholders, there was no indication that legal
mandates are not being carried out. NEPA and 36 CFR
215 provide guidelines for public participation and appeal
processes.
Public notification of proposed actions is done quarterly.
Public comments are summarized and described in
planning documents. CNNF’s response to the comments is
also recorded.
Both the FEIS and the LRMP, which are public documents,
clearly outline the procedures for public participation in the
CNNF activities. The CNNF is engaged in carrying out
open, transparent, public consultative processes for both
the strategic (e.g., LRMP) and tactical level planning (e.g.,
Projects). Also, the CNNF makes available to the public
information through a number of venues. For example, as
stated in the FEIS for the CNNF, NEPA incorporates
environmental analysis and public participation
requirements into the land management planning process.
NEPA procedures ensure that environmental information is
made available to the public before decisions are made and
before actions are taken. The period of time provided
under federal guidelines is more than sufficient. In the input
process for the proposed LRMP and DEIS, the 90-day
comment period was extended for an extra 30 days,
illustrating the CNNF’s willingness to provide an adequate
window for participation. Scientific analyses, expert agency
input, and public scrutiny are all essential to implementing
forest plan revision following NEPA procedures. The CNNF
web site is continually updated to include information on
upcoming natural resource activities and proposals. The
CNNF also sends out 30 news releases annually to convey
information about the forest to the public. Periodically,
Public Service Announcements are sent out to over 80 email outlets and faxed to 60 more. These outreach
informational releases seek to solicit public input as early as
possible in project planning.
Final planning decisions (e.g., forest projects) are based on
legal mandates and procedures, public input, credible
scientific analysis, and the productive capacity of the land.
These decisions, while made by CNNF employees all with
specialized skill levels, are not made in isolation. The FEIS
describes how public inputs are used in various
management alternatives. An accessible appeals process
to planning decisions is available, as evidenced by the
number of appeals that occur. No individuals or groups are
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 66 of 200
4.4. DOD/DOE 1. Forest managers carry
out open, transparent, public consultative
processes for the resolution of rights and
claims (see Criterion 2.3), assessment of
social impacts (see Criterion 4.4),
assessment of environmental impacts (see
Criterion 6.1), development and review of
the management plan (see Criterion 7.1),
and identification and delineation of High
Conservation Value Forests (see Principle
9). Forest managers address (incorporate
or provide a rationale for not incorporating)
input from all interested members of the
public, locally and nationally, including lay
and expert stakeholders.
4.4. DOD/DOE 2. In addition to the public
summary, full certification reports are
readily accessible to interested
stakeholders. Locations of sensitive
resource sites and classified information
may be withheld.
4.4. DOD/DOE 3. Forest management and
planning operations include measures to
mitigate negative effects to local
communities, the forest, and water quality
that might accrue from the use and disposal
of hazardous materials, munitions, and
other military or industrial activities.
precluded from engaging in the legal process. However,
while CNNF funds are sufficient to cover the additional work
required by appeals, in most cases this diverts resources
from other forest activities.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The elements of the consultative processes are addressed
in CNNF planning documents (e.g., FEIS, LRMP). The
CNNF is engaged in carrying out open, transparent, public
consultative processes for the resolution of rights and
claims (see Criterion 2.3), assessment of social impacts
(see Criterion 4.4), the assessment of environmental
impacts (see Criterion 6.1), the development and review of
the Forest Plan (see Criterion 7.1), and the identification
and delineation of HCVFs (see Criterion 9.2).
The CNNF staff does not exclude any stakeholder inputs,
therefore, it does not provide a rationale for not
incorporating input from stakeholders. All inputs are
considered as mandated by laws and regulations, and
through processes undertaken at the forest level to gather
inputs (e.g., providing through a number of venues
information on future management and planning activities
and asking for inputs). One stakeholder did express
frustration with CNNF not responding to repeated efforts to
provide direct input on management issues however this
was by far the exception.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF and The Pinchot Institute for Conservation will make
all reports generated through this test evaluation available
to the public. The USDA Forest Service is also subject to
the Freedom of Information Act, thus the document will, by
law, be available to the public.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Use and disposal of hazardous materials, munitions, and
other military activities do not occur in proximity to the
CNNF. Therefore, there is no reason to account for this in
forest management and planning. There has been no
active uncommon mineral extraction occurring on the forest
for some time. Should this occur, federal and state laws
provide mitigation procedures.
NOTES: None
4.5 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair
compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property,
resources, or livelihood of local peoples. Measures shall be undertaken to avoid such loss or
damage.
Applicability Note to Criterion 4.5: Provisions of Criterion 4.5. do not evoke protections or liabilities
beyond those provided by U.S., state, and local laws.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance.
4.5.a. The forest owner or manager
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
attempts to resolve grievances and mitigate
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 67 of 200
damage resulting from forest management
activities through open communication and
negotiation prior to legal action.
4.5.b. Forest owners or managers and
their contractors have adequate liability
insurance.
While CNNF has an “open-door policy” for receiving public
concerns, the actions that CNNF staff may take in
potentially litigious situations is limited by law and
regulation. There are many informal (e.g., personal
contact) and formal (e.g., letters) processes available for
resolution of conflicts. In all cases, the intent is to resolve
conflict at the lowest possible level through informal
processes using open communication and negotiation
rather than through those that might lead to legal action. If
the problem can’t be resolved at this level, the CNNF
employee consults with their supervisor, who will direct
them to the Office of the General Counsel. FSM 6170
provides detailed information and direction in this area.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF staff stated that redress for damages would be
covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act and that the
federal government is self-insured. Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 28.306 addresses contractor insurance
coverage. As a result of this regulation, CNNF does not
require liability insurance for its reforestation contracts.
Contractors are not required to carry liability insurance for
contract values under $25,000. While contractors are not
required to have liability insurance, they typically carry at
least $100,000 in insurance. The only exception is when
they are working on a government installation, where
liability insurance is required per FAR. A stipulated award
letter denotes the liability requirement and a letter of proof is
required by the USDA Forest Service in 10 days, to certify
that insurance is being obtained. There have been other
special circumstances where liability has been required.
The USDA Forest Service has a mechanism in place
where, when a contractor is engaged under contract, they
become an agent of CNNF and are covered under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. Also, the USDA Forest Service by
regulation insists that contractors (e.g., loggers, truckers)
must also comply with the federal regulations and laws
applicable to the CNNF.
For contracts over $100,000, the USDA Forest Service
requires specific kinds of insurance to adequately cover
potential liabilities. Contracts less than $100,000 or those
procured under simplified act procedures require that
contractors follow state law, which includes certain types of
insurance (e.g., workman's compensation). Construction
contracts over $25,000 include a payment guarantee to
sub-contractors and laborers.
All contracts require workmen’s compensation.
NOTES: None.
PRINCIPLE 5. BENEFITS FROM THE FOREST - Forest management operations shall encourage
the efficient use of the forest's multiple products and services to ensure economic viability and a
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 68 of 200
wide range of environmental and social benefits.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
5.1 Forest management should strive toward economic viability, while taking into account the full
environmental, social, and operational costs of production, and ensuring the investments
necessary to maintain the ecological productivity of the forest.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance. At the present time, CNNF funding levels are
adequate to maintain forest health and productivity (that is, there is not a degradation of the Forest
resource as a result of current funding levels). However, the ability to meet Forest-wide LRMP objectives
over the timeframe of the Plan is constrained, in part, by inadequate funding levels. Since this is an issue
that has the potential to adversely affect the Forest in the future (while current Forest condition is
acceptable), a minor non-conformance is issued.
5.1.a. The forest owner or manager is
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
willing and able to support long-term forest
management (i.e., decades rather than
The USDA Forest Service, as a century-old organization,
quarter-years or years), such as planning,
has demonstrated organizational viability which, among
inventory, resource protection, and postother actions, calls for creating a new forest management
harvest management activities.
plan at least every 15 years. On the CNNF, the latest plan
came into effect in 2004. The Forest Plan provides direction
for the future forest condition from the standpoint of a longterm perspective relative to ecosystem sustainability, range
of natural variability, fish and wildlife and the uses of fish
and wildlife, heritage resources, lands and land ownership,
mineral resources, recreation, ATV and snowmobile use,
non-motorized trails, social conditions for northern
Wisconsin, soils, special forest products, and timber.
5.1.b. Responses (such as increases in
harvests or debt load) to short-term
financial factors (such as market
fluctuations and sawmill supply
requirements) are limited to levels that
enable fulfillment of the management plan.
5.1.c. Investment and/or reinvestment in
forest management are sufficient to fulfill
management objectives and maintain
and/or restore forest health and
productivity.
NFMA (36 CFR Ch. II, 7-1-90ed. 219.3) planning regulations
require forest plans to maximize net public benefits. Net
public benefits are defined as the overall value to the nation
of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) minus all USDA
Forest Service inputs and negative effects (costs)
associated with producing primary benefits (whether they
can be quantitatively valued or not). The planning
regulations also require consideration of economic efficiency
in net public benefit maximization.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Timber harvesting on the CNNF is not altered in response to
short-term financial or supply factors. All harvesting is
conducted to fulfill the objectives laid out in the Forest Plan.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
At the present time, CNNF funding levels are adequate to
maintain forest health and productivity (that is, there is not a
degradation of the Forest resource as a result of current
funding levels). However, the ability to meet Forest-wide
LRMP objectives over the timeframe of the Plan is
constrained, in part, by inadequate funding levels.
Investment and reinvestment in forest management were
marginally sufficient to fulfill management objectives and
maintain and/or restore forest health and productivity. The
CNNF has an extraordinarily broad array of management
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 69 of 200
objectives that, due to in part to funding levels, were only
partially being met.
The CNNF is required by law to provide long-term forest
management on its lands. Over the past 13 federal fiscal
years, CNNF’s budget has been relatively stable, with the
last several years showing increases. The CNNF staff
predicts that vegetation management budgets will remain
stable, while there may be small decreases to other
programs. However, when combined with delays resulting
from appeals and litigation, budget allocations even for
vegetation management have not been adequate for CNNF
to fully implement the forest plan.
Some programs have also seen budget reductions. For
example, fewer acres of upland forest opening construction
and maintenance were completed than planned, in part, due
to reduced budgets. Wildlife openings are funded through
both timber sale receipts (CWKV funding) and through funds
provided by partner organizations. While the Forest does
attempt to secure funding from outside organizations, CNNF
has experienced a reduction is such contributions.
Additionally, some stakeholder ‘s commented that budget
allocations and staffing for boundary line activities and law
enforcement fall short of present needs. No evidence of
inadequate boundary line marking was observed during the
test evaluation.
SmartWood acknowledges that CNNF is not in control of
their budget. While the Forest does not anticipate that future
funding levels will be adequate to fully implement the Forest
Plan, they do not know with certainly which areas will be
emphasized or de-emphasized from one year to the next.
Consequently, it is difficult to adjust management goals and
objectives without the ability to plan on funding levels.
CNNF has been proactive in seeking and developing
innovative approaches to maintaining forest health and to
reduce the number of projects delayed or derailed by
appeals (e.g. enhanced cumulative effects analysis) in an
ongoing effort to better achieve forest goals. Currently, there
are approximately 500MBF of timber sale projects in
litigation or in the process of NEPA analysis. (OBS 4/06).
The issue of forest health has been challenging over the last
few decades with problems associated with recreation,
invasive plant species, ATV and snowmobile use, among
others. CNNF has responded to these problems with efforts
in research and management activities. CNNF invests in
non-commercial forest stand improvements, tree planting,
prescribed burning, wildlife/fisheries programs, and
numerous recreational projects. Investments were also
made in forest monitoring, database systems, and mapping
(e.g., through the GIS infrastructure).
NOTES: OBS 4/06: In order to avoid chronic shortfalls in achieving stated management objectives,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 70 of 200
CNNF could re-evaluate current goals and objectives in light of budgetary resources and make
adjustments accordingly, to either goals or budgets, such that forest plan objectives are achievable given
funding levels.
5.2 Forest management and marketing operations should encourage the optimal use and local
processing of the forest's diversity of products.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
5.2.a. Opportunities are given to local,
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
financially competitive, value-added
processing and manufacturing facilities.
All purchasers and service providers are located within the
region of CNNF’s forests, typically within a 100-mile radius
of CNNF lands.
With the exception of Stora Enso, NA, all other timber sales
are purchased by small businesses as defined by the Small
Business Administration. Because of the various
capabilities of sale purchasers, CNNF develops a variety of
timber sale types and sizes to provide work opportunities
suited to the variety of logging businesses in the region. The
average volume of a timber sale is 1.5 to 2 million board
feet.
5.2.b. When non-timber products are
harvested, the management and use of
those products is incorporated into the
management plan.
5.2.c. New markets are explored for
products from common but underutilized
forest species.
The Code of Federal Regulations requires that CNNF
include only loggers that have demonstrated sound
business practices in CNNF’s bidder pool.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Harvesting of non-timber forest products (termed Special
Forest Products on CNNF) is addressed in the LRMP (p. 213). Conifer boughs, firewood, and “princess” pine
(Lycopodium obscurum) moss are the three primary nontimber forest products harvested by private individuals.
Additionally, Christmas trees, twigs/stems, seedlings, cones,
and posts are also harvested. Restrictions on harvesting
these resources in sensitive areas are included in the
LRMP. Collecting Regional Forester Sensitive Species is
restricted by the LRMP. Supplement R9 Cheni 2409.182004-1 contains directions on harvest methods for boughs,
firewood, and Lycopodium, among other resources. These
directions are also supplied to the permittee.
Non-timber product harvests are monitored with a permitting
process that records location and includes a harvest limit.
Other than tracking the number of permits and estimated
harvest quantities, no determination of total allowable
harvest levels of these products has been made to ensure
that harvest levels are within sustainable levels (see
Objective 2.5 of the LRMP) (CAR 3/06).
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF offers products for sale by bid on the open market. All
timber products of merchantable size can be sold. CNNF
has no need to pursue new markets for underutilized
species since all upland species have markets. CNNF has
chosen not to harvest in forested wetlands in order to
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 71 of 200
manage these areas for other considerations.
NOTES: CAR 3/06: CNNF shall develop an effective strategy for ensuring that each non-timber forest
product harvested on its lands (especially Lycopodium and sheet moss) is harvested at sustainable levels.
These levels shall be developed to ensure that localized populations of these resources are not
jeopardized.
5.3 Forest management should minimize waste associated with harvesting and on-site
processing operations and avoid damage to other forest resources.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
5.3.a. Adequate quantities and a diversity
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
of size classes of woody debris
(considered a reinvestment of biological
Topwood and non-merchantable larger material is left
capital under this criterion—not an
scattered across the site at levels consistent with regional
economic waste) are left on the forest floor norms within these second-growth forest cover types. In
to maintain ecosystem functions, wildlife
areas where there was some mortality of early successional
habitats, and future forest productivity.
species (e.g., aspen, spruce), larger woody debris is found
on the forest floor. One of the LRMP Guidelines is to protect
existing downed logs greater than 10 inches in diameter
within sale units. However, it is possible that there is some
deficiency in the quantity of larger woody debris. CNNF has
not developed quantitative guidelines for retention of
desirable woody debris (OBS 5/06).
See also Criterion 6.3.c findings.
5.3.b. The loss and/or waste of
merchantable forest products is minimized.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
On virtually all CNNF timber sales, products are processed
at the stump and merchantable material is removed. Based
on field observation, waste of merchantable products is
exceptionally low on CNNF sale units. All CNNF sales are
sold as lump sum, where the purchaser pays for the
estimated harvest volume in advance. Thus, there is the
incentive for the purchaser to extract all merchantable
products. Even on those sales where there were minor
amounts of merchantable material remaining after harvest,
CNNF had been paid for this volume on a lump sum basis.
Stump heights were typically low. On active units, products
were observed sorted into pulpwood, boltwood, and
sawtimber at the landing.
Contract utilization standards are found in sections AT2 and
BT2.2 of the timber sale contract.
5.3.c. Harvest practices minimize residual
stand damage.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Based on field observation, residual tree damage and
adverse soil impacts are minimal. CNNF uses seasonal
restrictions requiring frozen ground to avoid soil compaction
on sensitive mineral soils (e.g., those with a silt cap). CNNF
does not harvest within wetlands. See Indicator 6.3.c.2
findings regarding soil damage.
CNNF does not have guidelines for assessing the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 72 of 200
acceptability of residual tree damage (OBS 6/06). Across
the Forest, sale administrators had different definitions of
what constituted damage (ranging from wounds 50-100
square inches in area) and stated that it was at the
discretion of the individual sale administrator as to what
constituted unacceptable damage. A measure of
consistency is developed through the timber sale reviews
conducted by Supervisor’s Office staff. These sample
several timber sales on 1-2 Districts per year, evaluating the
effectiveness of the harvest administration, among other
concerns.
During the harvest, sale administrators commonly mark for
harvest trees that are badly damaged and charge the
operator for these. Records of these additional trees are
kept in the sale file.
NOTES: OBS 5/06: CNNF could develop quantitative guidelines for woody debris retention that can be
used throughout the Forest to ensure that adequate quantities are maintained on harvest areas.
OBS 6/06: CNNF could develop definitions of acceptable residual tree damage to ensure consistency in
evaluation across the Forest.
5.4 Forest management should strive to strengthen and diversify the local economy, avoiding
dependence on a single forest product.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
5.4.a. Forest management diversifies
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
forest uses and products, while maintaining
forest composition, structures, and
The USDA Forest Service, operating under various
functions.
legislative acts (e.g., Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of
1960) produces a diversity of ecosystem goods and
services. They are considered to be the largest providers of
forest goods (e.g., timber, pulpwood) and services (e.g.,
recreation, water quality and quantity) operating under one
organizational structure in the United States. The CNNF
helps contribute to a diverse economy and a sizable
economic impact in the region. This can be attributed
primarily to investments and expenditures associated with
lumber and wood products manufacturing and recreational
activities.
Since these goods and services depend on a healthy and
sustainable forest, items such as forest composition,
structures, and functions are a prime consideration in the
CNNF LRMP. The CNNF does an excellent job of
addressing these issues and implementing plan directives
despite the fact that they are constrained via lawsuits and
other circumstances (e.g., funding levels, deer herbivory)
from fully reaching their stated goals. Some of these
constraints are, at least temporarily, out of their control (e.g.,
litigation). However, they are making clear and determined
steps in trying to overcome these obstacles.
NOTES: None
5.5 Forest management operations shall recognize, maintain, and, where appropriate, enhance
the value of forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 73 of 200
Note: The Working Group considers this
Criterion sufficiently explicit and
measurable. Indicators are not required.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The CNNF Forest Plan provides explicit objectives,
standards, and guidelines for maintaining, enhancing, and
restoring forest ecosystem composition, structure, and
function. Field sites and supporting documentation provided
ample evidence of CNNF’s efforts to maintain and enhance
forest ecosystem services and resources such as
watersheds and fisheries, and indicated that there were no
gaps associated with this Criterion. The CNNF is bound by
law to care for these services and resources, and appeared
to have the staff and resources dedicated to those tasks.
Among the sites visited by the team was the Deerskin River
Project, a cold water stream restoration effort that removed
or repositioned old and ineffective stream structures,
stabilized stream banks to reduce sedimentation, and
selectively removed encroaching tag alder to improve
habitat conditions for native aquatic species (e.g., brook
trout) and recreational access. At another site (Elvoy
Creek), the CNNF replaced an old stream crossing
containing undersized culverts with a new aluminum box
culvert to reduce road failures and sedimentation, improve
fish passage, and restore approximately 500 ft of stream
channel. The CNNF also removed an old logging dam
along Elvoy Creek to restore approximately 600 ft of the
creek to a natural free-flowing condition, and reconstructed
an impoundment on Lynch Creek to more effectively
manage waterfowl and other wetland species. The audit
team visited Black Lake, one of several sites where the
CNNF is restoring large woody debris (LWD) to lakes with
the goal of enhancing spawning, feeding, and cover habitats
for fish. As part of its Special Area Management Program,
CNNF recognizes and protects 41,000 acres and
approximately 228 miles of Wild, Scenic, and Recreational
River Corridors. Additionally, the CNNF has used
prescribed burning to enhance open habitats for the
reintroduced Wisconsin elk herd and is considering similar
open habitat management projects for the former Clam Lake
ELF site.
To accomplish these restoration, enhancement, and
maintenance projects, CNNF uses internal staff, resources,
and financing (e.g., Forest Roads and Trails 10% Program
for improving stream crossings) as well as partnerships with
a variety of partners, including WDNR, the Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, Trout Unlimited, Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, and others.
NOTES: None
5.6
The rate of harvest of forest products shall not exceed levels that can be permanently
sustained.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance.
5.6.a. The sustainability of harvest levels
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
is based on growth and regeneration data,
site index models, soil classification, and/or The 2004 LRMP developed a 10-year Allowable Sales
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 74 of 200
desired future conditions. The required
level of documentation is determined by
the scale and intensity of the operation.
Quantity (ASQ). The ASQ was revised for this plan to adjust
for changes in age and size classes, and new landscapelevel goals for species compositions and forest structure.
The ASQ resulted from modeling efforts to achieve a future
forest condition that meets desired ecological conditions.
The ASQ was limited to lands suitable for timber
management (see Appendix M of the FEIS) and constrained
to meet Forest-wide management goals (of which
appropriate species and age class distributions are a
fundamental goal) as detailed in Table B-2 of the FEIS.
Approximately 70% of the tentatively suited forest land is
available for timber harvest.
The ASQ was calculated using the SPECTRUM model (a
linear programming model). SPECTRUM model constraints
by Management Area are shown in Table B-3 of Appendix B
of the FEIS. Growth rates are derived from the TWIGS
model as corrected by data from Forest Inventory and
Analysis plots on CNNF lands. Timber sale data over the
past 10 years was used to “ground truth” model growth
predictions.
5.6.b. After the species composition and
the age-class (see Glossary) distribution
commensurate with long-term sustainability
have been achieved, harvest and growth
records demonstrate that the volume
harvested during any 10-year span is less
than the net growth accumulated over that
same period. Exceptions to this constraint
may be granted to forest owners or
managers whose periodic cycle of re-entry
is longer than 10 years. In such cases,
allowable harvest is determined by
examining the volume of re-growth and
removal since the previous harvest and the
forest owner or manager’s commitment to
allow an equivalent amount of re-growth
before additional harvests.
5.6.c. If rates of harvest are temporarily
accelerated to compensate for or prevent
unacceptable mortality, or in cases of
salvage operations (see Indicator 6.3.c.4),
the rate of future harvest is recalculated
accordingly to meet desired future
conditions, and the adjusted rate of harvest
CNNF diligently worked to ensure that the data going into
the SPECTRUM model was as accurate as possible to
avoid the problems recognized in the 1986 LRMP (poor data
on volume yields per acre and suited acreages) that
affected the accuracy of the model. At the time the model
was run for the 2004 LRMP, CNNF estimates that 85% of
the stand exam data (compex) was no more than 10 years
old.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
CNNF is not yet at a desirable age class distribution for
most of the forest cover types. Actual harvest levels on
CNNF are well below annual ASQ, which itself is estimated
to capture only 53% of net growth over the first decade of
the LRMP.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Even with CNNF’s spruce decline salvages, CNNF remains
well below its ASQ (even though salvage volume is not
required to be counted toward meeting ASQ). CNNF stated
that increased harvests in spruce decline areas were offset
by reduced harvests in other cover types due to staffing and
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 75 of 200
is implemented within three years of the
temporary acceleration.
NOTES: None
funding constraints and legal challenges on new projects.
PRINCIPLE 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT- Forest management shall conserve biological diversity
and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and
landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
6.1 Assessment of environmental impacts shall be completed -- appropriate to the scale, intensity
of forest management and the uniqueness of the affected resources -- and adequately integrated
into management systems. Assessments shall include landscape level considerations as well as
the impacts of on-site processing facilities. Environmental impacts shall be assessed prior to
commencement of site-disturbing operations.
Applicability Note: Small forest owners or managers who practice low intensity forestry may meet this
requirement with brief, informal assessments. More extensive and detailed assessments (e.g., formal
assessments by scientists) are expected by large forest owners or managers and/or those who
practice more intensive forestry management (see Glossary).
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance. Non-conformances were associated only with
Additional Considerations and therefore did not result in CARs.
6.1.a. Using credible scientific analyses
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and local expertise, an assessment of
current conditions is completed to include:
The CNNF assesses current conditions at multiple levels.
ƒ Disturbance regimes and
First, the current LRMP (e.g., Chapters 2 and 3) and FEIS
successional pathways;
provide a broad overview of current conditions, including
ƒ Unique, vulnerable, rare, and
terrestrial ecosystem components and landscape patterns
threatened communities;
(e.g., Management Areas (MA’s), forest composition and
ƒ Common plants, animals, and their structure, disturbance regimes and successional pathways);
habitats;
aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems and habitats; soil
ƒ Sensitive, threatened, and
resources; common flora and fauna; sensitive, threatened,
endangered species and their
and endangered species and habitats (e.g., RT&E, RFSS,
habitats;
MIS, MIH); and Special Management Areas (e.g.,
ƒ Water resources; and
wilderness; research natural areas;, old growth and natural
ƒ Soil resources (see also Indicators features complexes; wild, scenic, and recreational river
7.1.a and b).
corridors).
Second, whenever a specific management activity (Project)
is proposed, a rigorous process, legally required by the
1976 NFMA and the 1969 NEPA, is initiated requiring
production and publication of an EIS or Environmental
Assessment (EA) which evaluate potential and actual
environmental and social impacts of planned forest
management activities. Thus, as different projects with
proposed management activities come up for mandated
review, those portions of the forest subject to active timber
management receive a comprehensive assessment of
current conditions.
This process includes an assessment of current and
historical physical and biological resources. The “Boulder
Project Draft EIS” and supporting Biological Evaluation (BE)
were evaluated as an example of the adequacy of
assessment of current conditions. Chapter 3, “Affected
Environment” was an exemplary example of a thorough,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 76 of 200
comprehensive, and professional evaluation of current and
historical conditions and was based on comprehensive
reviews of existing literature and local expertise. Included in
the assessment were: description of soil and aquatic
resources, vegetation structure and composition as affected
by ecological processes and human activities, historical
disturbance regimes, natural disturbance factors, introduced
and natural insects and diseases, and biological diversity,
including identification of federally-listed RT&E species and
RFSS. The accompanying BE also provides a
comprehensive, scientifically-based evaluation of potential
project effects on each federally-listed RT&E species and
RFSS (including their habitats). Evaluations for each
species include the boundary and scale of effects analyses,
thresholds of effects, determination of effects, and project
design features to protect species.
Third, CNNF provides a description of current stand
conditions and associated physical and biological features
within its sale unit prescription documents. Descriptions
include but are not limited to stand area, composition and
structure, year of origin, soil and water resources, and the
presence of RT&E species and RFSS. CNNF has recently
developed a forest-wide sale prescription form to provide
uniform assessments of current conditions within sale areas.
6.1.b. Using available science and local
expertise, the current ecological conditions
are compared to both the historical
conditions and desired future conditions
within the landscape context. This
comparison is done by employing the
baseline factors identified in 6.1.a.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Within the LRMP as well as EIS’s or EA’s mandated prior to
execution of specific management activities (e.g., Boulder
Project Draft EIS), current ecological conditions are
compared to historical (natural and human-induced)
conditions within a landscape context. These comparisons
include factors identified in Criterion 6.1.a. as well as others.
See also Indicator 6.1.a findings.
CNNF describes future desired conditions for each sale
area within its sale unit prescriptions.
6.1.c. Prior to the commencement of
management activities, potential short-term
environmental impacts and their cumulative
effects are evaluated.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Within the EIS or EA mandated prior to execution of
management activities, CNNF comprehensively evaluates
potential short- and long-term environmental impacts and
cumulative effects, including both direct and indirect effects.
The “Boulder Project Draft EIS” (the latest EIS produced by
CNNF at the time of the test evaluation) and supporting
Biological Evaluation (BE) were evaluated as an example of
the adequacy of environmental impacts and cumulative
effects evaluations. Chapter 4, “Environmental
Consequences” was a thorough and scientifically-based
evaluation of both short-term and long-term environmental
impacts as well as cumulative effects. This evaluation
considers environmental impacts and cumulative effects for
each management option (alternatives) considered in the
EIS (Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed Action).
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 77 of 200
CNNF’s cumulative effects analyses have been appealed,
successfully and unsuccessfully, in the past. For those
projects successfully appealed, CNNF revised and
expanded their cumulative effects analysis. In another
example, the Sunken Moose Project was appealed and then
successfully settled by CNNF and the litigants out of court
(i.e., CNNF agreed to defer timber harvest in some areas to
protect goshawk and songbird habitat.) CNNF follows the
legally-mandated process, and has recently revamped its
NEPA evaluations to more effectively minimize the chances
of litigation.
6.1.d. Using assessments derived from
the above information, management
options are developed and implemented to
achieve the long-term desired future
conditions and ecological functions of the
forest (see also Criterion 7.1).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The LRMP describes long-term desired future conditions,
both forest-wide and by Management Area (Chapter 3).
Within the EIS or EA mandated prior to execution of
management activities, various management options
(alternatives) are considered. Each option is evaluated
comprehensively for its ability to achieve the long-term
desired future conditions and maintain/restore ecological
functions of the forest (categorized by soil, water,
vegetation, and wildlife resources) while simultaneously
avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating undesired environmental
impacts. The option chosen is executed in a manner that
protects long-term ecological functions (also see findings for
Criterion 6.1.c).
Assessments by CNNF, as expressed in the documentation
described above, include evaluation of regeneration,
nutrient cycling, soil compaction and productivity, hydrology,
sedimentation and stream flow mechanics, maintenance of
appropriate levels of overstory canopy, maintenance of
biodiversity, stand succession and distribution of
successional stages, vertical and horizontal habitat structure
(e.g., diversity of vegetation, snags, coarse woody debris).
In sum, these assessments form a comprehensive
assessment of, and form the basis for, maintenance and
implementation of long-term forest ecological functions.
AC 6.1.1. Managers of National Forests
use available science and information to
prepare a written description of the range
and variation in historical forest conditions,
spatial patterns and disturbance regimes
(reference variation).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The LRMP provides a written description of historical forest
conditions across the Forest, including disturbance regimes,
by Management Area (Chapter 3). Appendix D of the FEIS
(General Assessment of Historic Range of Variability (HRV))
also provides a forest-wide description, supported by
scientific literature and expert opinion, of the range and
variation in historical forest conditions and disturbance
regimes. This document also includes caveats and current
knowledge gaps associated with estimating HRV. Further,
within EIS’s or EA’s mandated prior to execution of
management activities, CNNF uses available science
(literature) and consultation with experts to provide a written
description of historic forest conditions and disturbance
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 78 of 200
regimes within each project area.
CNNF also has designated, described, and protected
approximately 184,600 acres of Ecological Reference Areas
(i.e., Research Natural Areas, Special Management Areas,
Old Growth and Natural Features Complexes) that are
maintained in their natural condition and serve as reference
sites for historical forest conditions.
AC 6.1.2. The description of the reference
variation of forest conditions is made
available for public review and comment
prior to its use in management decisions.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
AC 6.1.3. Current forest conditions are
compared at the landscape scale with the
reference variation of forest conditions.
Measures of current forest condition
include, but are not limited to:
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Area, composition (e.g., species
and age class distribution) and
spatial representation of ecological
types including old growth and late
seral forests;
Composition and distribution of
habitat-related structural elements
(e.g. snags, den trees, mast trees,
coarse woody debris, thermal and
hiding cover).
Climate trends and associated
effects on assemblages of flora
and fauna.
AC 6.1.4. The effects of national forest
management activities on neighboring
lands, as well as the effects of activities in
surrounding lands on national forests, are
included in the scope of environmental
impact assessments on National Forests.
No
N/A
As required by law, CNNF makes its descriptions of the
reference variation of forest conditions available for public
review and comment prior to its use in management
decisions.
No
N/A
To the degree that reliable, scientifically supported
information on reference conditions is available, CNNF
compares such reference conditions to current conditions at
a landscape scale, including area, composition, and spatial
representation of ecological types as well as composition
and distribution of structural conditions. These comparisons
are made both within the broad scope of the LRMP
(descriptions of historic, current, and desired future
conditions in Chapter 3) as well as during the EIS or EA
process for individual projects on the Forest.
Although CNNF staff recognize the potential influence of
climate trends and change on 1) current forest conditions,
and 2) the ability to achieve desired future conditions across
the Forest, no formal consideration of climate effects on
forest conditions has been incorporated into forest-wide or
project assessments.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The CNNF has given some forest-wide consideration to
effects of its activities on neighboring lands as well as the
effects of activities on surrounding lands on CNNF. For
example, CNNF did consider adjacent non-CNNF lands
during its viability assessment of RT&E species and RFSS
in conjunction with revision and subsequent adoption of the
LRMP (Forest Plan FEIS: Chapter 3).
The audit team also examined DEIS’s, SEIS’s, BE’s, and
other supporting documentation for the CNNF’s “Boulder,”
“Northwest Howell,” and “McCaslin” Projects to determine if
CNNF considers environmental effects of its project-level
management activities on neighboring lands, as well as the
effects of activities in surrounding lands on CNNF.
Evidence from all three projects indicates that CNNF
quantitatively addresses landscape-level effects of its
activities on habitat for RT&E species and RFSS. CNNF
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 79 of 200
acknowledges that “There may be times when action on the
forest may affect suitability of habitat outside of the CNNF.
Conversely, actions on other lands may contribute
cumulative effects with actions occurring on National Forest
lands” (Northwest Howell and McCaslin Projects Appendix
C, pg. 6). For all three projects, CNNF evaluated and
categorized habitat suitability for RT&E species and RFSS
on adjacent and other ownership lands within the
surrounding landscape for the purposes of cumulative
effects analyses (e.g., Table 1 in the Northwest Howell SEIS
Supplemental BE, Appendix B). These evaluations included
inspection of remote sensing data (e.g., aerial photographs,
WISCLAND Land Cover data) as well as field visits by
CNNF staff. However, as noted by CNNF staff in the EIS’s,
comprehensive data on adjacent and other ownership lands
including age structure within each forest type category,
specific management history, and future management plans
typically are not available. The CNNF is currently in the
midst of collecting and maintaining data on other lands
within the proclamation boundary and within a five-mile
radius of their exterior boundary.
Current CNNF EIS’s also give some general consideration
to potential landscape-level effects of its proposed
management options on other forest conditions in addition
to RT&E and RFSS habitats. For example, when evaluating
alternatives for desired future conditions within the Boulder
Project Area, CNNF acknowledged public concern that the
amount of aspen at the State and Forest level has been
steadily declining over the past 50 years. Air Quality, Fish,
and Social and Economic analyses within the EIS’s also
give general consideration to potential effects of the
proposed projects on adjacent resources.
However, these EIS’s do not appear to quantitatively
evaluate short-term or cumulative environmental effects of
CNNF’s proposed management options on vegetation, soils,
recreation, and other resources on adjacent land
ownerships. For example, the geographic area considered
by CNNF for most short-term and cumulative environmental
effects in the Boulder DEIS was “that portion of the CNNF
that is designated Management Area 2C” (e.g., Boulder
Project DEIS, pg. 73). With the exception of RT&E and
RFSS habitat conditions (discussed above), CNNF also
does not appear to quantitatively evaluate effects of
activities in surrounding lands on the Forest. As noted
above, data availability may currently limit the degree to
which CNNF can effectively evaluate these effects at a
landscape level. However, CNNF needs to continue to
improve their capability in this area.
AC 6.1.5: Intensive (e.g. results in
significant alteration to the ecosystem)
uses and forest management activities are
allocated to those lands with relatively
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF uses information developed through environmental
assessments described above to designate Management
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 80 of 200
lower ecological sensitivity.
Areas (MA’s: Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan) with the
expressed purpose of matching management objectives and
activities to specific geographic areas based on historical
conditions and disturbance regimes, current ecological
characteristics, and environmental sensitivities. CNNF
purposely tailors its management objectives and
prescriptions to avoid and prevent impacts to streams and
riparian areas, wetlands (including vernal pools), erosionprone topographies and soil types, and other ecologically
sensitive areas. Wetlands are specifically excluded from
forest management activity. Additionally, Appendix M of the
Plan FEIS identifies over 26,000 acres of RT&E species and
RFSS habitat that is not appropriate for timber management.
NOTES: Non-conformances were associated only with Additional Considerations and therefore did not
result in CARs.
6.2. Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their
habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and protection areas shall be
established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the uniqueness of
the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.2.a. Although species that are state
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and/or Federally listed as threatened,
endangered, of special concern, or
The CNNF maintains in the LRMP a list of federally-listed
sensitive, and their habitats are identified,
RT&E species, Regional Forest Sensitive Species (RFSS),
their specific locations remain confidential.
Management Indicator Species (MIS), Management
Indicator Habitats (MIH), and other sensitive species and
Note: On public forests and large private
habitats that potentially or actually occur on the Forest.
forests, the general locations of state
CNNF obtains locations of these species and communities
and/or Federally listed as threatened,
through on-the-ground surveys by staff and local and
endangered, of special concern, or
regional experts, querying the WDNR Natural Heritage
sensitive species are made available to the Inventory database, and consultations with WDNR Bureau
public.
of Endangered Resources (BER), USFWS, and other
appropriate agencies.
Location(s) of actual or potential occurrences of RT&E
species and communities, sensitive species and
communities, and RFSS are maintained by the CNNF.
District-level data on these locations are regularly reported
to the manager of the Forest-level GIS database for
mapping purposes. CNNF shares data on locations of such
species with the WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory
database and WDNR BER staff. Although actual or
potential occurrences of these species and communities on
the Forest are made public by legal mandate during the
preparation of EIS’s and supporting Biological Evaluations
(BE), data on specific locations are restricted to appropriate
staff.
Within the LRMP and supporting documents (e.g., Chapter
2 of the Plan and Appendix J of the Plan FEIS) CNNF has
comprehensively described 1) habitat descriptions and key
habitat elements for each species, and 2) standards and
guidelines for their management and protection based on
scientifically credible sources (e.g., scientific literature,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 81 of 200
expert opinion).
CNNF biologists train staff on the identification of RT&E
species and RFSS as well as their habitat requirements. As
an example, training has been provided to timber sale prep
staff on identification of large stick nests. CNNF has also
produced a CD and pocket guide to identify important
American Marin habitat elements. These materials are also
provided to contract timber markers. Although there was
anecdotal evidence that contractors (e.g., timber markers)
have reported occurrences of such species to CNNF staff
during sale layout and timber harvest activities, contractors
appear to be only informally and irregularly trained on the
identification of such species and their habitats or
procedures for reporting their detection (OBS 7/06).
6.2.b. If scientific data indicate the likely
presence of state and/or Federally listed as
threatened, endangered, of special
concern, or sensitive populations, either
new surveys are carried out before fieldmanagement activities begin or the forest
owner or manager assumes their presence
and makes appropriate modifications in
forest management.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Whenever a management activity (Project) is proposed by
CNNF, a rigorous process, legally required by the 1976
NFMA and the 1969 NEPA, is initiated requiring production
and publication of an EIS or Environmental Assessment
(EA) which evaluate potential and actual environmental
impacts of planned forest management activities. As part of
this process, a legally-mandated Biological Evaluation (BE)
is made to determine whether federally-listed RT&E plant or
animal species, RFSS, or other sensitive species or
communities are present, potentially present, or likely to be
impacted by the proposed activities. This pre-project
evaluation includes extensive determination by CNNF
specialists of potentially suitable habitat for each species,
querying local and regional databases (e.g., WDNR Natural
Heritage Inventory database), searches by CNNF
specialists, and assessments by local and regional experts
for presence or potential presence of such species or
communities. The BE includes legally-required and
extensive analyses of potential impacts associated with
planned management activities on these species, and
standards and guidelines to protect such species and their
habitats. Biological Assessments may also be requested by
interested third parties regarding potential impacts of
proposed management activities upon RT&E species,
RFSS, or other sensitive species and communities.
As legally mandated by the ESA, CNNF also consults with
the USFWS to determine if the proposed management
activities are likely to: (1) adversely affect federally-listed
species or designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the
continued existence of species proposed for listing; or (3)
adversely modify proposed critical habitat. The USFWS in
turn provides a Biological Opinion (BO) regarding impacts of
planned management action. BO’s may include
requirements for mitigation or alteration of management
activities and are binding, pending resolution of (any)
appeals by the USDA Forest Service or other parties.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 82 of 200
If the pre-project BE indicates the potential (i.e., potentially
suitable habitat) or known occurrence of federally-listed,
RFSS, or other sensitive species within the project area,
CNNF botanists and wildlife specialists conduct extensive
on-the-ground surveys, using scientifically accepted
protocols, to confirm presence and determine exact
location(s) of these species. If such species are identified,
their specific locations are mapped by CNNF and shared
with the WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory and other
appropriate agencies. CNNF then conducts management
activities compatible with protection, maintenance,
improvement, or restoration of species and their habitats
following the standards and guidelines set forth for each
species in the Forest Plan and supporting documents.
The audit team examined the Sunken Moose Project and
Boulder Project EIS/BE to determine conformance with
these procedures. In both cases the CNNF conducted
extensive pre-project BE’s for federally-listed RT&E species,
RFSS, and other sensitive species and communities. CNNF
consulted with USFWS regarding federally-listed species.
Extensive on-the-ground surveys were conducted for such
species in potentially suitable habitat, locations of
occurrences mapped, and protective design features
incorporated into management prescriptions based on Plan
standards and guidelines. Field interviews with CNNF staff
and examinations of several sale harvest areas indicated
that these protective measures were being consistently
implemented.
Although intensive and extensive on-the-ground surveys are
conducted for RT&E species and RFSS prior to the initiation
of management activities, the legally-mandated EIS/BE
process, including public review and comment, often results
in time lags of 2-3 years between when survey efforts are
conducted and the start of management activities (i.e.,
project approval). During this interval, mobile species (e.g.,
raptors) not present during initial surveys may subsequently
occupy stands within the project area. Discussions with
CNNF staff indicated that this has occurred on occasion,
suggesting the need for follow-up surveys closer to the time
of project initiation (OBS 8/06).
6.2.c. For management planning
purposes, forest owners or managers of
publicly owned and large privately owned
forests use, participate in, or carry out onthe-ground assessments for the
occurrence of state and/or Federally listed
as threatened, endangered, of special
concern, or sensitive species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Biological Evaluation’s are conducted to determine whether
federally-listed RT&E plant or animal species, RFSS, or
other sensitive species or communities are present,
potentially present, or likely to be impacted by the proposed
activities. BE’s include extensive determination by CNNF
specialists of potentially suitable habitat for each species,
including on-the-ground searches by CNNF specialists, and
assessments by local and regional experts for presence or
potential presence of such species or communities. See
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 83 of 200
findings associated with Criterion 6.2.b
6.2.d. Where they have been identified,
state and/or Federally listed as threatened,
endangered, of special concern, or
sensitive species and their habitats are
maintained and/or restored. Multiple-use
management activities are acceptable,
where the law allows, in these species’
habitat areas to the extent that they are
compatible with maintenance and
restoration of the species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
During the EIS/BE process and consequent on-the-ground
surveys, stand and landscape level evaluations are made of
potential effects on habitats of existing RT&E species,
RFSS, and other sensitive species and communities. Within
the LRMP and supporting documents (e.g., Chapter 2 of the
Plan and Appendix J of the Plan FEIS) CNNF has
comprehensively described 1) habitat descriptions and key
habitat elements for each species; and 2) standards and
guidelines for habitat management and protection based on
scientifically credible sources (e.g., scientific literature,
expert opinion). Appendix M of the Plan FEIS also identifies
over 26,000 acres of RT&E species and RFSS habitat that
is not appropriate for timber management. These design
features are incorporated into the EIS/BE for each project
area. If reserve areas, buffers, or other protection zones
(e.g., conservation zones) are deemed necessary to protect
habitats for these species, size and location of such zones
are identified, mapped, and protected. Connectivity within
the landscape of such zones is evaluated and protection is
afforded at this level if deemed necessary. CNNF then
conducts management activities compatible with protection,
maintenance, improvement, or restoration such species and
their habitats.
The audit team visited several sale areas where RT&E
species or RFSS occurrences had been documented during
the pre-project EIS/BE or were previously known to occur.
Protection strategies were consistently implemented
following LRMP guidelines. Prescriptions to protect habitats
of these species were clearly indicated in the sale contract
and harvest prescriptions. Reserve areas, buffers, and
other conservation zones were clearly marked on both the
sale area maps and on the ground (i.e., paint marks
indicating the boundaries of reserve areas).
CNNF also has demonstrated responsiveness to public
concerns regarding its protection of habitats for RT&E,
RFSS, and other sensitive species. For the Sunken Moose
Project within the Washburn Ranger District, CNNF
performed an extensive, legally-required EIS/BE following
procedures described in Criterion 6.1.b. CNNF consulted
with USFWS regarding federally-listed species and received
a “No Effect” determination regarding these species. CNNF
also conducted database searches of known occurrences,
extensive habitat analyses and/or ground surveys for RFSS
wildlife species likely to occur in the project area, including
northern goshawks, red-shouldered hawks, Connecticut
warblers, and other species. Approximately 16,000 acres of
land proposed for management within the project area were
determined to have habitat potential for known or likely-tooccur RFSS plant species. All of these acres were
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 84 of 200
extensively surveyed, resulting in 6 plant locations
documented and mapped. Design features following Plan
standards and guidelines were identified for the protection of
these species. Although the BE determined that the
proposed project would not result in negative impacts to
RT&E or RFSS, interested third parties initiated an
administrative appeal of the Project, citing concerns about
habitat protection for forest interior birds including northern
goshawks and red-shouldered hawks. In response, CNNF
managers successfully negotiated an agreement with these
parties by which timber harvest was deferred for 10 years in
about 9% of the project area to provide potential habitat for
these and other species. In addition, CNNF agreed to
conduct additional on-the-ground surveys for these species
within the deferred areas.
6.2.e. If a state and/or Federally listed as
threatened, endangered, of special
concern, or sensitive species is determined
to be present, its location is reported to the
manager of the species’ database.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.2. DOD/DOE 1. Forest areas that are
slated for resource extraction or
development are surveyed for Rare
species and Rare plant community types
(see Glossary) where survey protocols
exist. Surveys are kept up to date.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.2. DOD/DOE 2. A landscape-level
conservation and restoration analysis is
completed.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Location(s) of actual or potential occurrences of RT&E
species and communities, sensitive species and
communities, and RFSS are maintained by the CNNF.
District-level data on these locations are regularly reported
to the manager of the Forest-level GIS database, which is
updated at least annually. CNNF also provides these
locations to the WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory database.
No
N/A
Federal mandates require that National Forests conduct
EIS’s or EA’s for areas slated for resource extraction.
These impact statements and assessments contain
information on known and potential occurrences of RT&E
species and RFSS within the proposed project area. Prior
to management activities, CNNF biologists evaluate the
entire project area for habitat potentially suitable for RT&E
species and communities and RFSS. CNNF uses
scientifically-trained teams of wildlife biologists, botanists,
and other specialists to survey these potentially suitable
habitats for occurrences of RT&E species and communities
and RFSS. Additionally, CNNF staff query the WDNR
Natural Heritage Inventory database for known and potential
occurrences of these species and communities and consult
with local and regional experts.
No
N/A
The 1999 Landscape Analysis and Design (LAD) report for
CNNF provides a landscape-level ecological assessment of
the Forest. The LAD report provided the strategy for
conducting landscape design in the current LRMP. During
the process leading to the development of the current Plan,
CNNF also conducted a landscape-level viability
assessment of RT&E species and RFSS, focusing on
conservation and restoration measures needed to maintain
viable populations of these species (Forest Plan FEIS:
Chapter 3 and Appendix J). The CNNF also has formulated
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 85 of 200
landscape connectivity maps for northern hardwood
ecosystems (see Chapter 3 and Appendix P of the FEIS).
6.2. DOD/DOE 3. Where the regional
protected areas system, late-successional
and old-growth forests, and/or habitat for
recovering Rare species or plant
community types are inadequately
represented to ensure their long-term
viability across the landscape,
management for these attributes is given a
priority.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF has conducted thorough landscape-level viability
assessments for RT&E species and RFSS. Through these
assessments CNNF has determined that habitat conditions
for RT&E species and RFSS dependent on latesuccessional and old growth forests are expected to remain
stable and improve under the current Forest Plan. The Plan
identified and protected approximately 152,000 acres of
Ecological Reference Areas (i.e., Research Natural Areas,
Special Management Areas, Old Growth and Natural
Features Complexes). CNNF estimates that strong overlap
exists between rare species and these reference areas. In
fact, 42% of known rare plant locations are in these areas.
In addition to 85,500 acres of Old Growth and Natural
Features Complexes specifically identified and protected by
CNNF, a major objective of the current Plan is to maintain
and enhance adequate representation of late-successional
and old growth forests at a landscape level. CNNF is taking
proactive short-term and long-term steps to afford long-term
ecological representation across the landscape, prioritizing
management and protection of these species and habitats.
AC 6.2.1. A comprehensive list of the
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
species of interest and species of concern
(e.g., species with notable conservation
CNNF maintains a comprehensive list of state- and
need) is maintained for each National
federally-listed RT&E species, RFSS, and other sensitive
Forest. Managers demonstrate through
species and communities. These species and their habitats
polices and actions that said species, and
are proactively identified and mapped across the CNNF.
the ecological systems that support the
CNNF has developed and proactively implements policies
species, are duly considered in the course
and procedures to protect these species and their habitats
of forest management.
(also see findings for Criteria 6.2a-e).
NOTES: OBS 7/06: CNNF could consider formal training of contractors on: 1) identification of RT&E
species, RSFF, and other sensitive species and communities; and, 2) procedures for reporting the
detection of such species to CNNF staff.
OBS 8/06: When significant time lags occur between pre-project on-the-ground surveys for RT&E
species or RFSS and the commencement of management activities, CNNF could conduct additional
surveys to confirm the continued presence or absence of such species.
6.3 Ecological functions and values shall be maintained intact, enhanced, or restored, including:
a) Forest regeneration and succession.
b) Genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity.
c) Natural cycles that affect the productivity of the forest ecosystem.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance. Non-conformances associated with Additional
Considerations did not result in CARs.
6.3.a. Forest regeneration and succession
Applicability Note: Indicators 6.3.a.1. through 6.3.a.4. are intended to be applied sequentially.
6.3.a.1. Forest owners or managers make Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
management decisions using credible
scientific information (e.g., site
The CNNF uses landscape and site classification systems,
classification) and information on
the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units
landscape patterns (e.g., land use/land
(NHFEU) and the Forest Habitat Type Classification System
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 86 of 200
cover, non-forest uses, habitat types);
ecological characteristics of adjacent
forested stands (e.g., age, productivity,
health); species’ requirements; and
frequency, distribution, and intensity of
natural disturbances.
Applicability Note: This indicator may apply
only marginally to managers of small and
mid-sized forest properties because of their
limited ability to coordinate their activities
with other owners within the landscape or
to significantly maintain and/or improve
landscape-scale vegetative patterns.
6.3.a.2. Silvicultural practices encourage
regeneration that moves the forest toward
a desired future condition, consistent with
information gathered in 6.3.a.1.
Note: Development of a forest that is
capable of natural regeneration, based on
desired future conditions, is encouraged.
(FHTC), in developing their regeneration and forest
structure strategies. In addition, the CNNF has collaborated
with scientists at the University of Wisconsin to determine
historic regimes of natural disturbances (Appendix D of the
FEIS). The CNNF is also well staffed in areas of soil science
and plant ecology.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF relies heavily on natural regeneration and silvicultural
practices are typical of those commonly used to achieve
natural regeneration. The landscape on the CNNF is
extremely diverse in terms of the potential to support a wide
range of forest community types and many successional
patterns. In light of management goals and objectives, the
CNNF staff use the resources identified in 6.3.a.1 to plan
regeneration of appropriate, native species and to conduct
silvicultural operations consistent with developing the
desired future conditions. Guidelines for these processes
are well articulated in the LRMP.
Due to legal challenges to some planned management
activities, regeneration may not be achieved within desirable
time frames (see also Indicator 5.3.b findings).
The team observed areas of spruce decline salvage that
lacked sufficient regeneration at this time (1-2 years after
salvage). CNNF had anticipated these areas would be
naturally regenerated to hardwood species, although the
potential for this to occur appears low at this time. CNNF
has protocols and standards to assess the adequacy of
regeneration at 3- and 5-year intervals post-harvest. Thus,
poorly regenerated areas would be determined and
addressed at those periods. However, based on observation
and discussions with CNNF staff, there may be more areas
in need of planting than had originally been anticipated (due
to the current lack of hardwood regeneration). CNNF plans
to modify their monitoring protocols in the spruce salvage
units so that regeneration is checked after two years (rather
than three years). Although CNNF is confident that all
reforestation projects will be adequately funded, a large
increase in planting acreage was not forecast (in many of
these areas, Knutson-Vandenberg funding for planting had
not been planned due to the reliance on natural hardwood
regeneration).
While CNNF is currently maintaining conformance with the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 87 of 200
Indicator at this time, should unanticipated reforestation
costs outstrip available funds, they could fall into nonconformance in the future (OBS 9/06).
6.3.a.3. Measures are taken to ensure the
retention of endemic and difficult-toregenerate species.
6.3.a.4. Across the forest, or the
landscape in which it is located,
management actions lead to a distribution
of successional stages, age classes, and
community types appropriate to the scale
and intensity of the operation and desired
future conditions.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF has programs in place to address regionally declining
tree species and forest cover types such as yellow birch,
white cedar, eastern hemlock, Canada yew, and white pine.
Efforts are made to concentrate investment of resources to
regenerate difficult-to-generate species on the most
ecologically appropriate habitat types.
Deer browse can be a significant inhibiting factor in
establishing regeneration of desired species. CNNF works
with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (who
sets hunting policy on Wisconsin lands) to encourage liberal
deer hunting seasons within CNNF lands. CNNF has used
fencing, browse deterrent material (i.e., Plantskyd), and bud
capping, where necessary. CNNF also suggests that their
goal of increasing interior northern hardwood cover types
will reduce deer herd size over time by reducing deersuitable habitat.
No
N/A
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
Desired future conditions, as described in the LRMP, are
based on management goals and the ecological potential of
individual landscape units and Forest Habitat Types. To
implement this approach, the CNNF has been divided into
eight Management Areas (MAs), each with its specified
Theme, Desired Future Conditions, and management
guidelines for achieving them. Many MAs are further
subdivided to provide additional management diversification.
This approach leads to high probability that all successional
stages and age classes will be present on the landscape.
The Plan describes desired future age-class distributions for
all even-aged forest cover types and desired size-class
structure for uneven-aged types. CNNF Objective 1.4e is to
increase average vegetative patch size. From CNNF
documentation (crosswalk matrix): “Management Areas
were allocated to the forest with consideration for current
and future availability of contiguous forest patches and
connections between large patches.”
CNNF has Objectives for restoring or emulating natural
disturbance in northern hardwood (canopy gaps and
groups), pine, and barrens communities.
Given current harvest levels, there is the potential to reach a
critical age-class imbalance in the near future and not reach
the desired future age-class distributions stated in the
LRMP. Actual harvest levels on CNNF are well below
annual ASQ, which is 131 MMBF. The ASQ harvest rate is
estimated to capture 53% of net growth over the first decade
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 88 of 200
of the LRMP. The FY06 harvest level was 77.7 MMBF (59%
of ASQ) and the planned harvest level for FY07 is 70 MMBF
(53% of ASQ). This data is part of a downward trend that
has developed since at least 2001 where the actual volume
offered for sale has declined annually. While CNNF stressed
that ASQ was a ceiling and not a goal, the continued decline
of harvesting to approximately half of ASQ on areas deemed
suitable for timber management appears to indicate that
something more than adjusting to mitigate adverse harvest
impacts is occurring.
The FY06 actual harvest levels for hardwood and aspen
cover types depart most dramatically from the ASQ.
Hardwood pulpwood is at 46% of ASQ, hardwood
sawtimber is at 30% of ASQ, and aspen pulpwood is at 37%
of ASQ. All three of these product categories are expected
by CNNF to decline further in FY07. Actual FY06 softwood
harvest levels met or exceeded (by 7%) ASQ, which is
attributable primarily to the spruce decline salvage harvests.
Softwood harvest levels are expected to be close to ASQ
again in FY06. Salvage harvesting activities associated with
the spruce decline, and subsequent reforestation, has
partially offset the discrepancy between a pending age-class
imbalance resulting from harvesting well below ASQ, and
the desired future age-class distributions stated in the
LRMP. While not planned, these activities have resulted in
additions to the younger age classes in some species.
Overall, CNNF attributes the decline in the harvest volumes
offered for sale to delays caused by project-level appeals
and litigation, and to flat budgets for the timber sale program
(i.e., the increasing costs of harvest preparation work has
reduced the amount of harvest preparation activity that can
be accomplished). Additionally, the large departure from
ASQ for hardwood sawtimber is partially attributed to
sawtimber volume overestimates produced by the harvest
modeling. While it is appropriate that actual hardwood
sawtimber harvest volumes are based on field conditions,
the model overestimation causes some concern. Two of
these factors (NEPA appeals and litigation, and flat funding
levels) are not expected to change in the near future, which
brings into question whether the LRMP objectives can be
met within the timeframe of the LRMP.
ASQ is the harvest level that would result from meeting the
objectives specified in the SPECTRUM model for the lands
suited to timber management. These objectives, such as
appropriate age class distributions, were developed and
approved when the plan was implemented. Within the evenaged forest cover types, a significant portion of these types
consist of older age classes (19-64% depending on cover
type). Several of these types already have age classes
approaching the extended rotation ages described in the
LRMP.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 89 of 200
Failure to address these older age classes in an appropriate
manner, as allowed under the ASQ, will have two results: 1)
A large component of this even-aged forest will mature at
the same time in the next 10-20 years and may be lacking
suitable replacement stock, 2) the conversion of even-aged
hardwoods to an uneven-aged structure will be impaired
due to the lack of vigorous new age classes. Neither of
these results is silviculturally desirable. Focusing
management activities within these older age classes in
even-aged cover types will improve the age class
distribution and assist in maintaining the vigor of lands
designated as suitable for timber management. Unevenaged cover types (i.e., northern hardwood) will also be
adversely affected by an inability to meet the LRMP
objectives. Since these cover types rely on the presence of
multiple age classes within a stand to perpetuate
themselves, the reduced ability to adequately develop these
age classes will impede the development of desirable
uneven-aged structure.
A concurrent issue is the long time lag between project
analysis and harvest completion. Even where a timber
harvest project proceeds as planned, CNNF staff estimate it
could be 5-7 years before it is completed (which is halfway
through the 10-year planning cycle). NEPA analysis typically
takes 1-2 years and sale contracts are awarded for 3-5-year
periods. If project appeals and litigation occur, this
timeframe can be further lengthened (OBS 10/06).
Current actual harvest levels are significantly lower than the
ASQ harvest levels, which is precluding over-harvesting.
However, with this reduced management intensity, that
CNNF will be able to meet the age class distributions and
forest structure objectives defined in the LRMP appears to
be in question (CAR 4/06).
6.3.a.5. When even-aged management
(see Glossary) is employed, live trees and
native vegetation are retained within the
harvest unit in a proportion and
configuration that is consistent with the
characteristic natural disturbance regime in
each community type (see Glossary).
Exceptions may be allowed when retention
at a lower level is necessary for purposes
of forest restoration and/or rehabilitation or
to maintain community types that exist on
the site (e.g., oak-hickory, jack pine). The
level of retention increases proportionally
to the size of the harvest unit.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF has several guidelines for reserve areas and trees
within even- and uneven-age management areas (p. 2-14 of
the Plan and elsewhere).
CNNF also has a guideline to: “Leave 5-15% of potential
timber salvage unharvested following large disturbance
events (greater than 100 acres), except in salvage situations
that are high risk to human safety and/or forest health.”
The LRMP provides specific guidelines for live tree retention
for each of the 8 MAs and their subdivisions. Guidelines
specify species, number, and minimum diameters (8 inches
to 24+ inches, depending on species and habitat type) for
leave trees. For example, in regenerating aspen stands in
MA 1, preference is given to conifers in general, and longlived conifers in particular. When present, entire islands of
conifers are retained. In even-aged hardwood regeneration,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 90 of 200
preference is given to species that were underrepresented
in the harvested stand. Field observation confirmed that
retention guidelines were addressed during harvest
preparation work.
6.3.a. DOD/DOE 1. Late-successional and
old-growth stands and forest areas of all
sizes are identified. Forest management is
conducted only to maintain or enhance
their late-successional and old-growth
composition, structures, and functions.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF has identified late-successional northern hardwood
and conifer stands in MA 1-4. Late-successional and oldgrowth areas as defined by CNNF and the USFS are
included in MA 5, 6, and 8G. CNNF has identified areas
meeting the Lake States Standard definition of old growth.
Plan goals are to develop or maintain late-successional
structures and functions, where appropriate, in MA 1-4. MA
5, 6, 8G are not under forest management, although CNNF
is evaluating the need for NNIS control. Areas meeting the
Lake States Standard for old growth and that are currently
outside of the CNNF old growth MA are currently being
evaluated as to their status (see Criterion 9.1.a).
AC 6.3.a.1: Climate trends and associated
effects on assemblages of flora and fauna
are considered when developing strategies
for retention of endemic species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Regional ecological consequences of global climate change
have not yet been scientifically ascertained for CNNF lands
and CNNF has not expressly considered climate change in
developing management strategies for their lands. However,
CNNF staff is prepared to modify management plans as
more information becomes available. Several climaterelated studies are currently being conducted on the Forest.
For example, CNNF is a partner in the Chequamegon
Ecosystem Atmosphere Study (ChEAS), which is focusing
on interactions between the atmosphere and the biosphere
on the CNNF. See also Indicator AC 6.1.3 findings.
6.3.b. Genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity
6.3.b.1. Forest management conserves
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
native plant and animal communities and
species.
The LRMP addresses many ecosystem attributes and
habitat elements, such as snag trees, structural complexity,
and species diversity. Woody debris is only weakly
addressed. However, pre-existing large woody debris is
expected to be protected during harvest operations.
For each MA and its subunits, the Desired Future Condition
includes conservation of native plant and animal
communities. An example from MA 2A: Incorporating snags,
den trees, coarse woody debris, super canopy trees, and
canopy gaps into the management activities enhances
structural diversity. Trees are uneven-aged with a range of
tree sizes up to 23 inches in diameter. Sugar maple is the
most common species but efforts are made to maintain or
restore regionally less common species such as yellow
birch, hemlock, and white pine. (LRMP p. 3-8)
Planted regeneration uses only locally adapted seed and
seedlings.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 91 of 200
Field observations provided numerous examples of activities
meeting LRMP objectives regarding the conservation of
native plant and animal communities.
6.3.b.2. The forest owner or manager
cooperates with local, state, and Federal
agencies to protect and manage native
plant and animal communities and species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Goal 3.3 in the LRMP is: “Cooperate with individuals and
organizations, and local, state, tribal, and federal
governments to promote ecosystem health and
sustainability across landscapes.” Objective 3.3c is to:
Cooperatively work with federal, state, county agencies and
other non-governmental organizations for control of nonnative invasive species. Objective 3.3f is to: Collaborate
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the collection and
dissemination of information indicating the possible
presence of Canada Lynx and Kirtland’s Warbler.
The Forest engages in ongoing resource management
consultation with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. Numerous examples of
cooperative initiatives for the conservation of native species
and communities were discussed during the test evaluation,
including northern blue butterfly with the University of
Wisconsin-Green Bay and American marten with Wisconsin
DNR and GLIFWC.
6.3.b.3. There is a consistent scientific
method for selecting trees to plant, harvest,
and retain in order to preserve and/or
enhance broad genetic and species
diversity.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.3.b.4. Forest owners or managers
maximize habitat connectivity to the extent
possible at the landscape level (e.g.,
through an ecological classification system,
at the subsection or land-type association
level).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Genetic and species diversity are maintained through the
management of diverse forest communities consisting only
of native species. CNNF utilizes natural regeneration
whenever feasible to meet management goals. Tree species
are managed on sites on which they are well-suited.
No
N/A
CNNF management is conducted within the framework of a
land classification system (NHFEU) to the landtype
association level in forest-wide planning and the vegetative
habitat type at the site level. Several Plan guidelines
promote enhanced habitat connectivity across the
landscape (e.g., increasing interior mature forest patch size,
adjacency of harvest units, maintaining long-lived conifer
transition zones, etc.). The current and future condition of
landscape patterns are discussed in the FEIS (pp. 3-93 to 3109). Maps showing the connectivity of northern hardwood
systems are provided in Appendix P of the FEIS. An
example of managed habitat connectivity is in the Moquah
Area, where a mosaic of four major community types
(grassy openings, shrub, savanna and woodland) are
managed for large-scale connectivity.
The CNNF contains some of the largest blocks of
contiguous forest cover in the area. Their management
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 92 of 200
actions and reserve areas provide habitat connectivity at the
landscape level. Numerous examples of localized habitat
connectivity (e.g., retention areas, RMZs) were observed
during the test evaluation.
6.3.b. DOD/DOE 1. Management units and
sites that function as ecological refugia
(see Glossary) and relict areas (see
Glossary), either formally or due to the
historical exclusion of management
activities, are identified and continue to be
managed primarily as such. Forest
management is limited to actions needed
to support the composition, structures, and
functions of the refugium or relict area.
AC 6.3.b.1. Forest management practices
maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems
and habitat features, wetlands, and
forested riparian areas (including springs,
seeps, fens, and vernal pools).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The 2004 Plan delineated 149,500 acres (roughly 10% of
total forest area) in special management areas (MA 8F) and
old growth (MA 8G). An additional 35,200 acres are
designated as candidate research natural areas (MA 8E).
These areas are managed primarily by allowing natural
processes to occur.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The 2004 Plan contains numerous guidelines for watershed
protection, and for protecting riparian areas and wetlands
(pages 2-1 to 2-3). The current and future condition of
aquatic systems are discussed in the FEIS (pp. 3-4 to 3-34).
No instances of degraded aquatic systems were observed in
the field.
6.3.c. Natural cycles that affect the productivity of the forest ecosystem
6.3.c.1. Biological legacies of the forest
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
community are retained at the forest and
stand levels, consistent with the objectives
The Forest Plan provides specific standards and guidelines
of the management plan, including but not
(e.g., numbers, desirable characteristics) for retaining live
limited to: large live and declining trees,
wildlife den trees, mast trees, and snags during forest
coarse dead wood, logs, snags, den trees,
management activities. Based on numerous field sites
and soil organic matter.
visited by the audit team, CNNF is consistently
implementing these guidelines through identification and
protection of wildlife den trees and snags (safety permitting)
within sale units. Sale unit prescriptions consistently
contained language addressing numbers and types of den
trees, mast trees, and snags to be retained within stands
during harvest, as well as methods to ensure their
protection. Further, in instances when CNNF staff have
determined that existing snag quantity or quality within
stands are inadequate to meet Plan standards and
guidelines, CNNF staff have proactively employed
techniques (e.g., girdling) to create and/or enhance these
structures.
CNNF does monitor large forest disturbances (>100 ac) to
ensure adequate retention of structure and coarse woody
debris (CWD) during salvage operations. However, the
current Forest Plan does not provide explicit standards and
guidelines for retention of coarse woody debris (CWD)
during normal timber harvest operations. Based on
examination of numerous upland hardwood stands within
sale areas, CNNF is retaining CWD during its harvest
operations and such retention appears typical for the region.
Interviews with CNNF staff also revealed awareness of the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 93 of 200
need to maintain and protect CWD during forest
management activities. However, contrary to efforts for den
tree and snag retention, minimum amounts and
configuration of CWD currently are not specified by CNNF in
sale area prescriptions (OBS 5/06). This is particularly
important for younger stands, where both snags and CWD
typically are underrepresented structural attributes. See also
Indicator 5.3.a findings.
6.3.c.2. Forest management practices
maintain soil fertility and organic matter,
especially in the A horizon, while
minimizing soil erosion and compaction. If
degradation of soil quality occurs, as
indicated by declining fertility or forest
health, forest owners or managers modify
soil management techniques.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.3.c.3. Forest management practices
maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems,
wetlands (including peatlands, bogs, and
vernal pools), and forested riparian areas
(see also Criterion 6.5).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 Chapter 2 contains
detailed definitions of detrimental soil impacts. CNNF has a
monitoring program for tracking the effects of forest
management activities on soils. The Plan contains several
guidelines (p. 2-3) for protecting soil productivity. Whole-tree
harvesting is only used on 10% of the spruce salvage areas.
All other harvesting is conducted with conventional systems
that leave topwood in the forest. Frozen ground restrictions
are used for sensitive mineral soils. CNNF uses relatively
long rotations for even-aged species and has the option to
use extended rotations where appropriate. CNNF promotes
natural succession, using planting only where desirable
seed sources are unavailable.
No
N/A
The 2004 Plan contains numerous guidelines for watershed
protection and for protecting riparian areas and wetlands
(pages 2-1 to 2-3). The Plan also includes protective
guidelines for ephemeral and permanent woodland ponds
(page 2-15). The current and future condition of aquatic
systems are discussed in the FEIS (pp. 3-4 to 3-34).
No instances of degraded aquatic systems were observed in
the field. Vernal pools were protected by exclusion from the
management area or by sale contract clauses that treated
them as riparian areas subject to the BMPs for water quality.
Typically, there were no “physical” barriers (such as flag or
paint lines) around vernal pools. During certain seasons of
the year, when these pools are less noticeable, accidental
impact on these areas could occur. There are no formal
guidelines (e.g., for buffer widths) for protecting vernal pools
less than one acre in area from adverse environmental
changes (e.g., increased insolation) that could result from
even-aged management systems (OBS 11/06).
6.3.c.4. Responses (such as salvage) to
catastrophic events (such as wildlife,
blowdown, and epidemics) are limited by
ecological constraints.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Current salvage activities are limited to spruce cover types
that are dying due to age and insect/disease issues. The
Plan contains guidelines to leave 10-15% of salvage areas >
100 acres un-salvaged to provide woody debris and
structural diversity. Additionally, on all salvage sites visited,
downed woody debris and standing dead snags were
observed. CNNF accepts endemic levels of pest populations
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 94 of 200
and the resulting mortality as a normal component of forest
management.
NOTES:
CAR 4/06: CNNF shall either develop effective strategies to implement the management practices that will
more closely adhere to LRMP harvest levels and move the Forest to the desired future condition specified
in the LRMP, or revise their desired future condition goals and ASQ to better reflect the actual
management intensity on the Forest.
OBS 5/06: (See Criterion 5.3)
OBS 9/06: CNNF could develop contingency plans to ensure that adequate future funding is available to
reforest areas planned for natural regeneration, but eventually found to lack adequate natural
regeneration, without reducing funding for previously planned reforestation projects.
OBS 10/06: CNNF could consider strategies for shortening the length of time that transpires between
project inception and completion in order to avoid unplanned and potentially significant delays in achieving
goals for desired future forest conditions (e.g. age-class distribution),
OBS 11/06: CNNF could develop formal buffer width guidelines to ensure that adverse environmental
changes to vernal pools smaller than one acre do not occur.
6.4 Representative samples of existing ecosystems within the landscape shall be protected in
their natural state and recorded on maps, appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations and
the uniqueness of the affected resources.
Applicability Notes:
When forest management activities (including timber harvest) create and maintain conditions that emulate
an intact, mature forest or other successional phases that may be under-represented in the landscape, the
management system that created those conditions may be used to maintain them, and the area may be
considered as a representative sample for the purposes of meeting this criterion.
Ecologically viable representative samples are designated to serve one or more of three purposes: (1) to
establish and/or maintain an ecological reference condition; (2) to create or maintain an underrepresented ecological condition (e.g., successional phases of a forest type or natural community (see
Glossary); and (3) to protect a feature that is sensitive, rare, or unique in the landscape. Areas serving the
purposes of (1) and (2) may move across the landscape as under-represented conditions change, or may
be fixed in area and managed to maintain the desired conditions. Areas serving the purposes of (3) are
fixed in location.
For managed forest communities in the Lake States, ecologically mature or late-successional phases (not
including old growth) are generally under-represented and would qualify as representative sample areas
under purposes 1 and 2. Tolerant or long-lived mid-tolerant species (e.g., white pine.) typically dominate
such stands. Depending on the site and forest community, characteristics may include a well-developed
understory flora,
relative stability of species composition, multi-layered canopies, stable or declining live timber volume, live
trees in upper quartile of expected diameter growth for the site, presence of recognized late-successional
indicator species (such as certain mosses, lichens or other epiphytes), and accumulation of large snags
and large downed woody material. Examples of classification systems that include some of these
concepts are: “Types of Old Growth Forests” as defined by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forests/oldgrowth/types.html), and, Minnesota DNR Old-Growth Forest Policy
- Goals and Results, at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forests/oldgrowth/policy.html. For representative
sample areas that may move across the landscape as conditions change (purposes 1 and 2), the length of
time that an area is maintained as a representative area will vary with the rarity of the ecosystem type and
specific ecological value to be conserved, the uniqueness of the represented condition, the rate at which
areas with similar characteristics develop.
Examples of representative samples fixed in place and serving purpose 3 include relatively exceptional
features such as fens, vernal pools, areas surrounding caves, and areas of special soils containing
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 95 of 200
endemic plant species.
In most cases, intact old-growth (see Glossary) will qualify as representative sample under purpose 3 due
to their rarity in the Lake States Region. Unentered old-growth stands (see Glossary) are also prime
candidates for designation as representative sample areas under purpose 3. In both cases, the burden is
on the landowner/manager to demonstrate that these areas should NOT qualify as representative sample
areas under purpose 3. Other very old forests (over 150 years old) that do not meet the Lake States
Standard’s strict definition of “old growth” (e.g., there is some evidence of past harvesting) should also be
considered as potential representative sample areas under purpose 3
Forests of all sizes may be conducive to protection of fixed features, such as rock outcrops and bogs.
Medium sized and large forests may be more conducive to the maintenance of successional phases and
disturbance patterns than small forests.
While public lands (see Glossary) are expected to bear primary responsibility for protecting representative
samples of existing ecosystems, FSC certification of private lands can contribute to such protection.
Representative samples may be protected solely by the conditions of the certificate and/or through the use
of conservation easements or other instruments of long-term protection.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance. CNNF is in overall conformance at the Criterion
level with a well-designed system of representative areas. The minor non-conformance at the Indicator
level was due to CNNF finding additional potential old-growth areas within their databases that they have
not yet formally evaluated for potential inclusion as representative areas.
6.4.a. Forest owners and managers protect Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and reserve ecologically viable
representative areas that are appropriate
Because of the very large size and landscape diversity of
to the scale and intensity of the operation.
the CNNF, together with a relatively low level of
management activity in many areas, representative samples
of natural forest communities abound.
In addition to protecting unique and sensitive areas during
the implementation of management practices within suitable
timber management areas, CNNF has designated special
management areas (Management Area 8) and Wilderness
(Management Area 5) that incorporate representative areas
across the Forest. These areas are collectively described as
“Ecological Reference Areas”. The purpose of these areas
is to protect and maintain: 1) unique ecological systems or
features, 2) habitat for sensitive species, 3) high-quality
examples of common ecosystems. These Areas total
approximately 250,000 acres.
CNNF has designated Alternative Management Areas
(AMA) where the objective is to: “…provide higher levels of
ecological components while providing timber products. Key
aspects of AMAs include the following: extended rotation
ages, larger trees, higher levels of snags woody debris,
larger patches, higher retention of reserve trees, and
improved wetland transition zones. There are 262,900 acres
of AMAs.”
6.4.b. Where existing protected areas
within the landscape are not of adequate
size and configuration to serve as
representative samples of commonly
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
It is likely that CNNF, as the largest landbase under a single
management system in northern Wisconsin, contains the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 96 of 200
occurring forest types as defined above,
owners or managers of mid-sized and
large forests, whose properties are
conducive to the establishment of such
areas, designates ecologically viable areas
to serve these purposes.
Applicability notes to 6.4.b.: When
evaluating the need for representative
sample areas, the assessment should
consider the relative rarity and degree of
protection of similar areas at the state-wide
scale, or at the biophysical region scale (as
defined by state Natural Heritage
programs) if Natural Heritage program or
other assessments suggest that there is
significant variation in community or
ecosystem types between biophysical
regions. Where existing protected areas
adequately represent commonly occurring
forest types in the landscape, these areas
may suffice as the representative samples
and no representative sample need be
established on the forest.
best potential within the landscape to provide representative
examples of various forest communities. Only the Northern
Highland/American Legion State Forest, the Ottawa
National Forest, and potentially several County Forests
would provide similar potential. The CNNF spans a large
geographic area and can be seen as a “repository” of
samples of natural forest types for the entire Region. The
makeup of CNNF’s landscape is such that all commonly
occurring forest types are well represented.
Special Management Areas and lands withdrawn from
timber management provide ample opportunity to
adequately represent the natural forest types occurring in
the region. Therefore, no additional representative samples
need be established.
CNNF planning documentation (e.g., FEIS, LAD report)
contains discussion of the processes for determining the
status and configuration of representative areas at the
Forest and landscape scales. Virtually all ecosystems
occurring within the area of CNNF’s lands are also
represented on CNNF lands.
The owner or manager of a small forest
may not be expected to designate
representative sample(s) of commonly
occurring forest types, except where there
is an exceptional opportunity to contribute
to an under-represented protected areas
system. For small forests or low-intensity
managed forests, this criterion is satisfied
by meeting the standards of Criteria 6.2.
The size and configuration of the
representative areas depend on the:
(1) extent of representation of their forest
types within the landscape (less protection
calls for more representative samples);
(2) ecological importance of setting aside
stands and tracts to other conservation
efforts (a minimum size and ecological
value is needed to make representative
samples useful); and
(3) intensity of forest management within
the forest and across the landscape (a less
intensively managed forest or landscape
calls for less area of representative
samples, and a more intensively managed
forest or landscape calls for more).
6.4.c. The size and arrangement and time
scale of on-site representative sample
areas are designated and justified using
assessment methods and sources of up-to-
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The CNNF ecological staff are well connected with
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 97 of 200
date information described in 6.1.
Note: Known protected off-ownership
areas that are in proximity to the
management unit may be used to meet the
goal in the landscape.
researchers in other agencies and in academia. CNNF has
inventoried ecologically significant features on the Forest
from 1992 onward. CNNF evaluated ecosystems within the
landscape utilizing data from sources such as the Wisconsin
Natural Heritage Inventory to identify high-risk-of-loss
systems. Representative areas on the Forest were ranked
based on their ecological quality (which included the
information in Criterion 6.1) and designated based on this
ranking (see LAD report). Ecological reference areas are
labeled as research natural areas, special management
areas, or old growth (Management Areas 8E, 8F and 8G).
6.4.d. Unless exceptional circumstances
can be documented, known areas of intact
old-growth forests are designated as
representative sample areas under
purpose 3. (See Applicability Note under
6.4 above) and are reviewed for
designation as High Conservation Value
Forests (HCVF- see also Applicability note
under 6.3). Known areas of un-entered
stands of old-growth are carefully
reviewed, screened for uniqueness, and
considered as potential representative
sample areas prior to undertaking any
active management within them (see
Applicability Note under 6.4). Old growth
stands not designated as either a HCVF or
a representative sample area are, at a
minimum, managed to maintain their oldgrowth structure, composition, and
ecological functions under purpose 3.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.4.e. The size and extent of representative
samples on public lands being considered
for certification is determined through a
transparent planning process that not only
utilizes scientifically credible analyses and
expertise but is also accessible and
responsive to the public.
6.4.f. The process and rationale used to
determine the size and extent of
representative samples are explicitly
described in the public summary.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.4.g. Managers of large, contiguous public
forests (>50,000 acres) create and
maintain representative protected areas
within the forest area, sufficient in size to
encompass the scale and pattern of
expected natural disturbances while
maintaining the full range of forest types
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF conducted an extensive field-oriented survey of
potential high conservation value forest areas that resulted
in the designation of over 185,000 acres of designated
protected areas. CNNF has designated most known areas
of old-growth as special management areas (e.g., MA 5, 8E,
8F, 8G) where natural processes will be allowed to control
ecological change. CNNF’s definition of “old growth” is more
inclusive than the definition within the Lake States Standard.
CNNF has tentatively identified an additional 1000 acres of
scattered areas in their forest inventory that may meet the
definition of old growth. These areas need to be groundtruthed to determine their ability to function as
representative areas or HCVF. CNNF is now in the process
of evaluating these additional areas, however they have not
yet determined whether the potential old growth stands
outside currently protected areas are in fact old growth (i.e.,
by composition, structure, and functionality) and warrant
protected designation (CAR 5/06).
No
N/A
Designation of special management areas was conducted in
consultation with regional experts and incorporated public
input through the NEPA process.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The FEIS, LAD report, and other planning documentation
provide information on the process used to determine the
type and size of representative areas. These documents
discuss the rationale and need for representative areas, as
well as the location and size of the areas deemed to be
representative.
No
N/A
Wind was the predominant natural disturbance mechanism
on 65% of the Forest in the past. These disturbances
affected 0.6% of the hardwood-hemlock forest annually as
small gap-creating events and 0.07% of the hardwoodhemlock annually as larger blowdowns. CNNF’s special
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 98 of 200
and successional stages resulting from the
natural disturbance regime.
management areas (such as five wilderness areas each
with a minimum area of 4,000 acres), as well as maintaining
patch sizes in Management Area 2 of several thousand
acres, provide ample opportunity for natural disturbances to
operate.
6.4. DOD/DOE 1. Broad scale ecological
processes (e.g., natural fire regimes,
successional patterns, flooding) are
restored when:
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
1. they are not present in the landscape in
a substantially unmodified condition, and
2. the size of the forest and its primary
mandated use can accommodate their
restoration.
No
N/A
Objectives 1.4b, 1.4c, and 1.4h of the Plan address the
desire to restore disturbances (primarily wind throw and fire)
to the landscape in patterns that emulate those that
occurred naturally in coniferous and grassland cover types.
Wind throw occurs commonly on the Forest. Currently
protected areas and the goal of increasing vegetative patch
size will enhance the potential to incorporate broad-scale
ecological processes into the forest’s natural cycles.
6.4. DOD/DOE 2. Where existing protected Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
areas within the landscape are not
adequate in number, size, or configuration
Existing protected areas within the landscape are adequate
to assure the long-term viability of the
in number, size, and configuration to ensure long-term
existing elements of native biological
viability of the existing elements of native biological diversity.
diversity, the forest manager designates
protected areas to enhance their viability.
NOTES: CAR 5/06: CNNF shall develop and implement a process to confirm whether potential old
growth stands outside currently protected areas are in fact old growth (i.e., by composition, structure, and
functionality) and warrant protected designation.
6.5 Written guidelines shall be prepared and implemented to: control erosion; minimize forest
damage during harvesting, road construction, and all other mechanical disturbances; and protect
water resources.
Note: The Lakes States-Central Hardwoods Regional Certification Standards cover a diverse landscape from prairie to glaciated Northern lands to unglaciated forests in the South. Within this region, all States
have developed best management practice guidelines specific to their ecological conditions (see Appendix
A). These locally developed guidelines serve as the base requirement for implementation of this standard.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
• Logging and Site Preparation
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Logging operations and construction of
roads and skid trails are conducted only
during periods of weather when soil is least
susceptible to compaction, surface erosion,
or sediment transport into streams and
other bodies of water.
Logging damage to regeneration and
residual trees is minimized during harvest
operations.
Silvicultural techniques and logging
equipment vary with slope, erosion hazard
rating, and/or soil instability with the goal of
minimizing soil disturbance. Areas that
The 2004 LRMP contains numerous Objectives to minimize
damage to forest resources due to mechanized activity (see
Chapter 1) and specifically incorporates the Wisconsin
Forestry BMPs for Water Quality, the Wisconsin
Construction Site BMP Handbook, and the Federal Highway
Administration BMPs for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
as the minimally acceptable practices used to protect the
forest system. Additionally, the LRMP contains Standards
and Guidelines (see Chapter 2) for protecting water
resources, soils, biological resources, wildlife and fish,
RT&E species, RFSS, and aesthetics.
The Region 9 Directive for Chapter 2 of the FSH 2509.18
contains detailed definitions of detrimental soil disturbance
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 99 of 200
exhibit an extreme risk of landslide are
excluded from management activities that
may precipitate landslides.
Note: "Extreme risk" is a legally binding
term in some states.
Plans for site preparation specify the
following mitigations to minimize impacts to
the forest resources:
(1) Slash is concentrated only as much as
necessary to achieve the goals of site
preparation and the reduction of fuels to
moderate or low levels of fire hazard.
(2) Top soil disturbance and scarification of
soils is limited to the minimum necessary to
achieve successful regeneration of desired
species.
•
Transportation System (including
permanent and temporary haul
roads, skid trails, and landings)
The transportation system is designed,
constructed, maintained, and/or
reconstructed to minimize the extent of the
road network and its potential cumulative
adverse effects.
Access to temporary and permanent roads
is controlled to minimize significant
adverse impacts to soil and biota while
allowing legitimate access, as addressed
by Principles 3 and 4 and identified in the
management plan.
Failed drainage structures or other areas of
active erosion caused by roads and skid
trails are identified, and measures are
taken to correct the drainage problems and
stabilize erosion.
•
Stream and Water Quality Protection
Stream crossings are located and
constructed in a way that minimizes
fragmentation of aquatic habitat (see
Glossary) and protects water quality.
•
Visual and Aesthetic Considerations
Forest owners or managers limit and/or
reduce negative impacts on visual quality
for rutting (6 inches deep for 10 feet), soil displacement
(>25% of surface area), and compaction (15% increase in
bulk density), among other effects. Detrimental effects are
allowed on up to 15% of the harvest area. All CNNF staff
interviewed stated that 15% of the area was too large to
accept detrimental impacts and that they would modify
harvest operations well before this threshold was reached.
Based on field observations, this is common practice.
Across the Forest, there were no observations of excessive
soil disturbance.
CNNF harvest operations are limited to dry or frozen
ground. Numerous instances were observed where frozen
ground conditions were required in the harvest plan for
protecting mineral soils susceptible to compaction.
Damage to regeneration and residual trees is consistently
minimized in practice, based of field observations. Sale
contracts require that purchaser shall not unnecessarily
damage young growth or other trees to be reserved
(Provision BT6.32), that no damage of any form occur to
reserve trees (Provision CT6.32), that felling minimize
damage to residual trees (Provision CT6.41). However,
there are no written criteria for evaluating acceptable levels
of tree damage with regard to wound size and frequency
(OBS 6/06).
CNNF depends solely on restrictions to frozen ground to
protect soils, rather than specifying alternative logging
equipment. There is a limited range of equipment available
across the Forest, ranging from wheeled/tracked processors
and forwarders to the occasional cable skidder. Thus, there
is a limited ability to select from alternative equipment.
However, the use of seasonal restrictions, buffer areas, and
the Region 9 Directives effectively controls soil disturbance.
Site preparation for natural regeneration or planting is
conducted using salmon blades, roller chopping, or disc
trenching. All of which limit soil disturbance to the minimum
amount necessary for successful regeneration.
The transportation system is designed using BMPs to
minimize adverse impacts. No instances of excessive
erosion were observed during field visits. It is a Goal to
reduce Forestwide average total road density to no more
than 3.0 miles per square mile within timber management
areas. CNNF staff estimate that 4-5 miles of new road
construction occurs across the Forest each year, while 4045 miles of road are decommissioned (obliterated) each
year. Appendix BB in the LRMP contains guidelines for
reducing road density within each Management Area. CNNF
uses gating and seasonal closures to restrict motorized
access to sensitive areas.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 100 of 200
caused by forest management operations.
While poorly functioning riparian crossing still exist on the
Forest, CNNF has an active program to repair crossings that
are causing erosion or fish passage problems. Several such
sites were reviewed in the field and found to be well in
conformance with the Standard.
Numerous guidelines and standards are found in the LRMP
for scenery management (pp. 2-29 to 2-33). Field
observations verified that scenery management objectives
were incorporated into management activities.
AC 6.5.1. Where federal, state, county and Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
local BMP guidelines, recommendations,
and regulations provide several options,
Field observations verified that BMPs were applied
the most effective measure for protecting
appropriately, and typically were exceeded in practice.
the affected resource is applied.
NOTES: OBS 6/06: (See Criterion 5.3)
6.6 Management systems shall promote the development and adoption of environmentally
friendly non-chemical methods of pest management and strive to avoid the use of chemical
pesticides. World Health Organization Type 1A and 1B and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides;
pesticides that are persistent, toxic or whose derivatives remain biologically active and
accumulate in the food chain beyond their intended use; as well as any pesticides banned by
international agreement, shall be prohibited. If chemicals are used, proper equipment and training
shall be provided to minimize health and environmental risks.
Applicability Note to Criterion 6.6: This Criterion is guided by FSC Policy Paper and Guidelines: Chemical
Pesticides in Certified Forests: Interpretation of the FSC Principles and Criteria. Revised July 2002. In
addition, World Health Organization Type 1A and 1B and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides; pesticides
that are persistent, toxic or whose derivatives remain biologically active and accumulate in the food chain
beyond their intended use; as well as any pesticides banned by international agreement, shall be
prohibited.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.6.a. Forest owners and managers
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
demonstrate compliance with FSC Policy
paper: “Chemical Pesticides in Certified
Since 1990, there has been a moratorium on the use of
Forests, Interpretation of the FSC
chemical pesticides for timber management (i.e., site
Principles and Criteria, July 2002”
preparation) on CNNF. In 2003, the Forest Supervisor
(available at
approved the use of pesticides to manage NNIS populations
http://www.fsc.org/en/whats_new/documen and in 2005 the Chequamegon-Nicolet Invasive Plant
ts/Docs_cent/2) and comply with
Control EA was developed. This EA covered the use of
prohibitions and/or restrictions on World
glyphosate, triclopyr, imazapyr, and clopyralid. To date, all
Health Organization Type 1A and 1B and
chemical treatments for NNIS control have been done using
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides;
primarily glyphosate, with some triclopyr and clopyralid.
pesticides that are persistent, toxic or
While CCNF is not specifically aware of the FSC Policy
whose derivatives remain biologically
paper regarding chemical pesticides, CNNF is not utilizing
active and accumulate in the food chain
any chemicals that are currently prohibited by that policy
beyond their intended use; as well as any
(OBS 12/06).
pesticides banned by international
agreement.
6.6.b. Forest owners or managers employ
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
silvicultural systems, integrated pest
management, and strategies for controlling One of the guidelines in the LRMP under forest health is to “
vegetation that minimize negative
Give preference to mixtures of species and age classes
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 101 of 200
environmental effects. Non-chemical
techniques are preferred in the
implementation of these strategies.
over monocultures and large areas of a single age class.”
Silvicultural prescriptions are used to maintain tree and
stand vigor by removing less vigorous trees and managing
for stand-level and forest-wide structural diversity. Field
observations verified that these goals were being
addressed.
CNNF restricts herbicide use to controlling non-native
invasive species (NNIS), where 83% of the applications
used glyphosate. CNNF will initiate control practices
“wherever” NNIS are discovered. Herbicides are not used in
other aspects of forest management or in utility corridor
maintenance by CNNF policy. Mowing and prescribed
burning have been used to control interfering woody
vegetation.
CNNF instituted firewood cutting/transportation bans in
certain areas of the Forest to control insect (e.g., emerald
ash borer) and disease (e.g., oak wilt) pests. CNNF requires
equipment to be power washed prior to being used in other
areas of the Forest whenever the equipment has been used
in known NNIS infestations.
6.6.c. Forest owners or managers develop
written strategies for the control of pests as
a component of the management plan (see
Criterion 7.1).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.6.d. If chemicals are applied, the most
environmentally safe and efficacious
chemicals are used. Chemicals are
narrowly targeted, and minimize effects on
non-target species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.6.e. Chemicals are used only where they
pose no threat to supplies of domestic
water, aquatic habitats, or Rare species or
plant community types.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.6.f. If chemicals are used, a written
prescription is prepared that describes the
risks and benefits of their use and the
precautions that workers will employ.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Control practices for competing vegetation are described in
project-level analyses or stand prescriptions. The 2005
Invasive Plant Control EA contains control strategies for
non-native invasive plant species. The LRMP has a longterm strategy for reducing the deer herd size (and related
adverse herbivory) by reducing suitable habitat over time
through the development of more area of northern
hardwood interior forest cover type. Strategies for the
control of gypsy moth are found in the “Gypsy Moth
Management in the United States Final Environmental
Impact Statement” (November 1995). CNNF has strategies
for addressing oak wilt and emerald ash borer. Future pests,
such as beech bark disease have been recognized as
potential threats.
No
N/A
Chemicals used for NNIS control are effective while having
high environmental safety. Cut stump or spot spray
applications are used to minimize effects to non-target
species.
No
N/A
Controls are implemented in the Invasive Plant Control EA
to protect aquatic habitats, water supplies, and RT&E
species and plant communities.
No
N/A
The Invasive Plant Control EA, site-level documentation,
and Job Hazard Analysis documents contain prescriptive
narrative that is in conformance with the Indicator.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 102 of 200
6.6.g. If chemicals are used, the effects are
monitored and the results are used for
adaptive management. Records are kept
of pest occurrences, control measures, and
incidences of worker exposure to
chemicals.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.7.c. Broken or leaking equipment and
parts are repaired or removed from the
forest.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
6.7.d. Equipment is parked away from
riparian management zones, sinkholes, or
supplies of ground water.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF maintains records on pest occurrences and control
measures. The Forest Service Pesticide-Use Management
and Coordination Handbook (FSH2109.14) documents the
procedures for unintended pesticide exposure from spills,
incidents and accidents. Chapter 60 of this Handbook
describes an incident as “Pesticide incidents include nonlife-threatening situations such as minor pesticide spills,
non-target pesticide applications … and any other situation
that may affect public welfare or may be of special interest
to the public, the press, or other media.” Documentation of
such incidents is reported through the Pesticide Accident
and Incident Report (FS-2100-D). CNNF monitors
treatments sites to evaluate the need for additional
treatment as discussed in the Invasive Plant Control EA.
NOTES: OBS 12/06: CCNF could review the FSC policy paper on chemical use to ensure that
unintended non-conformance with that policy does not occur.
6.7 Chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes including fuel and oil shall be
disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off-site locations.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.7.a. In the event of a spill of hazardous
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
material, forest owners or managers
immediately contain the material, report the CNNF has developed a DRAFT Emergency Preparedness
spill as required by applicable regulations,
Action Plan (which is not yet official policy (OBS 13/06),
and engage qualified personnel to perform
which addresses hazardous materials spills and the
the appropriate removal and remediation.
dumping of hazardous material on CNNF lands by other
persons. Wisconsin and Environmental Protection Agency
reportable spill quantities are listed within this document, as
are containment and remediation actions. Timber sale
contracts require reporting and containing spills (Provision
BT6.341). CNNF provided three examples of spill reporting
and remediation that have occurred since 2001. All were
remediated under the oversight of the CNNF, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Spill Coordinator, and a
professional disposal contractor (WRR Environmental
Services).
6.7.b. Waste lubricants, anti-freeze,
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
containers, and related trash are stored in
a leakproof container until they are
Specifications for containing and transporting this material
transported to an approved off-site
are within the DRAFT Emergency Preparedness Action Plan
disposal site.
and timber sale contracts (Provision BT6.34). Harvest sites
were clean.
No
N/A
Timber sale contract Provision BT6.34 requires equipment
to be maintained in good repair and that any servicing will
not pollute soil or water. Field observations confirmed that
this Provision was enforced.
No
N/A
Timber sale contract Provision BT6.34 requires that any
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 103 of 200
servicing will not pollute soil or water. Field observations
confirmed that this Provision was enforced.
NOTES: OBS 13/06: CNNF could expedite the approval of their DRAFT Emergency Preparedness
Action Plan to ensure that all parties adhere to it as official policy.
6.8. Use of biological control agents shall be documented, minimized, monitored, and strictly
controlled in accordance with national laws and internationally accepted scientific protocols. Use
of genetically modified organisms shall be prohibited.
Applicability Note to Criterion 6.8: Genetically improved organisms (e.g., Mendelian crossed) are not
considered to be genetically modified organisms (i.e., results of genetic engineering), and may be used.
The prohibition of genetically modified organisms applies to all organisms including trees. This Criterion is
guided by the FSC policy paper: GMOs: Genetically Modified Organisms: Interpretation for FSC. Revised
October 1999.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.8.a. Exotic (i.e., non-indigenous), nonConformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
invasive predators or biological control
agents are used only as part of a pest
CNNF has employed exotic, non-invasive predators, or
management strategy for the control of
biological control agents only as part of a pest management
exotic species of plants, pathogens (see
strategy for control of non-native invasive species (NNIS)
Glossary), insects, or other animals when
when alternative control methods (manual or chemical) have
other pest control methods are, or can
proven ineffective or would imperil other resources. Of
reasonably be expected to prove,
1,800 NNIS sites currently identified on the CNNF, biological
ineffective. Such use is contingent upon
control agents have recently been used at only two sites.
peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the
These agents include introduction of Galerucella spp.
agents in question are non-invasive and
beetles that feed preferentially on purple loosestrife, and
are safe for indigenous species because,
leafy spurge flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) to control leafy
for example, exotic species can host
spurge. CNNF determined that neither mechanical nor
pathogens that might diminish biodiversity
chemical control was expected to be effective or appropriate
in the forest.
at these sites. The purple loosestrife site is along a river,
large enough to support bio-control insects where
mechanical control would be difficult and chemical use
undesirable. At the other site, manual and chemical control
could result in accidental damage to the rare Missouri rockcress where it occurs mingled with the leafy spurge.
Use is contingent on peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. In
conjunction with the EA for the CNNF’s Non-native Invasive
Plant Project, staff extensively reviewed existing scientific
literature and results of previous control efforts using these
species across the region (WI, MN, MI). Repeated studies
have shown only minor damage to non-target native plants.
Galurucella spp. Aphthona spp have been extensively used
and monitored by WDNR and other landowners in
Wisconsin for over 12 years. Galurucella spp. were first
released on CNNF in 1997 with excellent results, and
subsequent monitoring did not indicate adverse impacts on
non-target plant species (CNNF Purple Loosestrife
Monitoring Project, 1997-2004).
CNNF is currently using pheromone flakes to control
invasive gypsy moths, although Bacillus thuringiensis
kurstaki (Btk) and Gypchek pesticides have been used in
the past. Gypchek has been used where application of Btk
poses a risk to certain lepidopterous species within the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 104 of 200
affected area. The safety and effectiveness of these
treatments has been substantiated by the scientific
literature.
CNNF staff extensively document and monitor the use of
exotic non-invasive predators and biological control agents
and strictly follow all applicable laws, regulations, and
scientific protocols. These bio-control insects have been
approved by APHIS, and CNNF follows scientific protocols
and complies with applicable federal and state laws
governing their use. Also, proposed use of bio-control
agents is subjected to public review and comment.
NOTES: None
6.9 The use of exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored to avoid
adverse ecological impacts.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.9.a. Except on plantation sites (see also
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Criterion 10.4), the use of exotic tree
species is permitted only in the first
Management activities proposed and implemented by CNNF
successional stages or other short-term
under the Forest Plan are conducted in a manner which
stages for the purposes of restoring
ensures regeneration and succession of native tree species
degraded ecosystems.
and forest communities, using natural regeneration and
locally-adapted seedlings in the case of artificial
regeneration. CNNF does not regenerate or plant exotic
tree species. Norway spruce and Scot’s pine were
occasionally used in the early 1900s to reforest areas.
There is one 32-acre planting of Norway spruce and 22
plantings (499 acres) where Norway spruce or Scot’s pine
are mixed with native species. It is CNNF policy to allow
these areas to convert naturally or through planting to native
species.
6.9.b. The use of exotic species (see
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Glossary) is contingent on peer-reviewed
scientific evidence that the species in
CNNF uses both native and non-native seed mixes to
question is non-invasive and will not
control erosion and other soil disturbances during
diminish biodiversity. If non-invasive exotic management activities. When completely native seed mixes
species are used, the provenance and
are unavailable, CNNF uses mixtures of native and nonlocation of use are documented, and their
persistent, non-native mixes of grasses (e.g., oats, rye) and
ecological effects are actively monitored.
legumes for seeding roadsides, landings, and skid trails.
Based on the literature and expert opinion, these exotic
species are considered non-invasive. For example, the
Crooked Oak Salvage Plan within the Washburn District
called for the following grass mixture to prevent erosion: an
oat nurse crop plus native Canada wild-rye, Virginia wildrye, and little bluestem, with a certified weed free mulch
such as oat straw to be used for mulching. Sites where
exotic species are used are documented.
According to the CNNF Forest Ecologist, the CNNF is
moving towards using only native seed mixes for erosion
control. To this end, the CNNF began a native plant
propagation program in 2005 to develop internal and
external sources of native seed for use on roadsides,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 105 of 200
landings, skid trails, and other erosion-prone sites. The
intent of this program is to completely eliminate use of nonnative seeding mixtures on erosion-prone sites and more
generally to prevent further spread of NNIS.
6.9.c. Written documentation is maintained
for the use of exotic species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Use of biological control agents, including locations and
times of application, as well as post-application monitoring,
are carefully documented. CNNF also maintains written
documentation and provides detailed instructions to
contractors for species mixes, rates, locations, and timing of
seeding applications within sale contract provisions (e.g.,
Valhalla View Sale Area Contract, pg. 154) to control
erosion on landings, roadsides, and other areas disturbed
by management activities.
6.9.d. Forest owners or managers develop
and implement control measures for
invasive exotic species.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The CNNF LRMP includes NNIS control and eradication in
Goals and Objectives as well as Forest-wide Standards and
Guidelines and Monitoring for NNIS. CNNF has developed
an aggressive NNIS control program as described in the
NNIS EA. CNNF has developed an Early Detection/Rapid
Response program to monitor NNIS. All developed
recreation sites are surveyed each year. All gravel pits and
homesteads have been surveyed. Most roads and
motorized trails have been surveyed at least once. Most of
the largest lakes have been surveyed for aquatic invasive
plants.
CNNF uses accepted mechanical, chemical, and biological
control methods to control NNIS. CE’s and EA’s have been
completed for the use of each of these treatments, including
guidelines to appropriately match the type of control method
with site-specific conditions. In addition to efforts by full-time
CNNF staff, seasonal employees are hired each summer to
work exclusively on invasive plant inventory and control.
CNNF has developed an NNIS list for the Forest. Of 29
NNIS listed, 19 species are on the “A List” (species of
immediate concern; control is warranted) and 10 species
are on the “B List” (not currently invading natural
habitats).To date, 1,800 sites on CNNF covering
approximately 1,526 acres of infestation on 5,938 gross
acres have been identified, with control measures
implemented on a subset of these sites (ranked according to
priority/immediacy of concern). When NNIS are found on
adjacent lands, CNNF staff attempt to work with these
landowners to more effectively control the spread of NNIS.
NNIS control efforts are monitored for implementation and
effectiveness. When CNNF uses contractors to control
NNIS, contractors are monitored by CNNF staff. CNNF
timber sale contracts include equipment cleaning clauses
requiring operators to ensure that prior to moving into or out
of sale areas where potential transfer of NNIS is a concern,
all equipment is free of soil, vegetative matter, seeds, or
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 106 of 200
other debris that could transport exotic seeds. However,
equipment cleaning clauses currently are limited to
management activities within timber sale areas (OBS
14/06). CNNF also has integrated NNIS into project
planning, NEPA, and KV plans. All new EISs include an
NNIS specialist report and design features to address NNIS.
CNNF has been proactive in developing partnerships and
educational resources to prevent spread of NNIS. CNNF
has been actively involved in establishing several
partnerships to control NNIS, including the Northwoods
Weed Initiative, Invasive Plant Association of Wisconsin
(IPAW), and the Governor’s Council on Invasive Species.
CNNF hosted a Cooperative Weed Management Area
(CWMA) workshop in 2005, and has helped organize similar
conferences. A CWMA MOU tin the Northwest counties of
the State is nearing completion. CNNF is involved in the
development of state-level BMP’s for NNIS through the WI
Council on Forestry. The CNNF also developed an invasive
species website and has assisted with the development of
field guides, posters, and brochures to educate adjacent
landowners and the general public about NNIS.
The audit team visited several NNIS infestation sites,
including sites (e.g., Franklin-Butternut Lake trailhead –
garlic mustard site; Clam Lake Snowmobile Re-route –
spotted knapweed) where control methods have been
implemented and monitored for effectiveness. All known
NNIS sites have been reported in the FACTS and NRIS
TERRA invasive plants databases.
AC 6.9.1. Managers of National Forests
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
identify activities by which invasive exotic
species (e.g. plants, insects, animals)
become established. Control mechanisms, CNNF staff have identified areas with high risk activities
(e.g., vehicular traffic areas, homesteads, disturbed sites)
including preventative strategies, are
conducive to spread of NNIS and regularly monitor them.
implemented for high risk activities
Appropriate control mechanisms are employed when NNIS
associated with Forest Service
are found (also see findings for Criterion 6.9.d).
management responsibilities.
NOTES: OBS 14/06: CNNF could consider requiring preventative measures (e.g. equipment cleaning
clauses) to all management activities that could potentially spread NNIS.
6.10. Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses shall not occur, except in
circumstances where conversion:
a) Entails a very limited portion of the forest management unit; and
b) Does not occur on high conservation value forest areas; and
c) Will enable clear, substantial, additional, secure, long term conservation benefits across the
forest management unit.
Applicability Note: Forest management activities that are part of an approved management plan, including
road construction and habitat restoration (such as creation of openings in the forest for wildlife habitat and
the maintenance or creation of wetlands or prairies) are not conversions for the purposes of this criterion.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
6.10.a. Over the life of the ownership,
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
forest to non-forest conversions are limited
to the threshold of 1% of the forest area or
It is CNNF’s goal to maintain the land base in a forested
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 107 of 200
100 acres, whichever is smaller, except
that a parcel up to two acres in size may be
converted for residential use by the forest
owner or manager.
condition, as defined by the Applicability Note to this
Criterion. There are 180 active or inactive gravel pits across
the Forest, which average 6 acres or less in size. Surface
mineral development is the only anticipated development
that could convert forestland to a non-forested condition.
There is the potential for non-forest conversion in those
areas where the subsurface rights are not owned by the
federal government. Exploration activity has had a minor
impact on surface resources, thus requiring minimal surface
restoration needs. Most prospecting activity was done
seasonally (winter) to avoid surface impacts from accessing
sites and to keep road access costs to a minimum.
Prospecting activity utilized an already existing extensive
CNNF road network, therefore, there was very little
additional road access needed. There have been 10's of
thousands of acres of the CNNF under permit for noncommon variety exploration activity. But because this
activity has had minimal surface impact and limited visibility
to the public on the ground, it has not generated much
interest. The only significant public interest was generated
in the early 1990's when a mineral deposit was discovered
and the company started proposing a mine development,
but the mine proposal never progressed to the permitting
stage. The extent to which the CNNF could control
subsurface mining must be monitored over time. At the time
of the test evaluation, mineral development was expected to
be very small and forest conversion was not occurring.
6.10.b. When private forestlands are sold,
a portion of the proceeds of the sale is
reinvested in additional forest lands and/or
forest stewardship.
NOTES: None
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF lands are public lands.
PRINCIPLE 7. MANAGEMENT PLAN - A management plan -- appropriate to the scale and intensity
of the operations -- shall be written, implemented, and kept up to date. The long-term objectives of
management, and the means of achieving them, shall be clearly stated.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
7.1. The management plan and supporting documents shall provide:
a) Management objectives.
b) Description of the forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and
ownership status, socio-economic conditions, and a profile of adjacent lands.
c) Description of silvicultural and/or other management system, based on the ecology of the
forest in question and information gathered through resource inventories.
d) Rationale for rate of annual harvest and species selection.
e) Provisions for monitoring of forest growth and dynamics.
f) Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments.
g) Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species.
h) Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management
activities and land ownership.
i) Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used.
Applicability Note: The management plan may consist of a variety of documents not necessarily unified
into a single planning document but which represents an integrated strategy for managing the forest within
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 108 of 200
the ecological, economic, and social limitations of the land. The plan includes a description and rationale
for management elements appropriate to the scale, intensity, and goals of management, and may include:
Silvicultural systems
Regeneration strategies
Maintenance of structural and species diversity
Pest control (disease, insects, invasive species, and vegetation)
Soil and water conservation
Methods and annual rates of harvest, by species and products
Equipment and personnel needs
Transportation system
Fire management
Prescribed fires
Wildfires
Fish and wildlife and their habitats (including non-game species)
Non-timber forest products
Methods and annual rates of harvest, by species and products
Regeneration strategies
Socioeconomic issues
Public access and use
Conservation of historical and cultural resources
Protection of aesthetic values
Employee and contractor policies and procedures
Community relations
Stakeholder notification
Public comment process
For public forests, legal and historic mandates
American Indian issues
Protection of legal and customary rights
Procedures for integrating tribal concerns in forest management
Management of sites of special significance
Special management areas
High Conservation Value Forests
Riparian management zone
Set asides of samples of representative existing ecosystems
Sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species protection
Other protected areas
Landscape level analyses and strategies
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance.
7.1.a. Management objectives
7.1.a.1. A written management plan is
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
prepared that includes the landowner's
short-term and long-term goals and
CNNF planning documents contain three overall Goals that
objectives (ecological, social, and
the Forest will strive to achieve over time and 60 Objectives
economic). The objectives are specific,
that are expected to be met within the timeframe of the
achievable, and measurable.
LRMP. These Objectives are specific and measurable.
Planning documents include both strategic (the LRMP) and
tactical (project-level analyses).
7.1.a.2. The management plan describes
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
desired future conditions that will meet the
long-term goals and objectives and that
For lands suited for timber management, the FEIS describes
determine the silvicultural system(s) and
the 100-year forest composition and structure for each
management activities to be used.
Management Area, as well as the silvicultural treatments
and harvest rates necessary to meet these goals, including
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 109 of 200
Forest landscape pattern, visual quality, and riparian area
goals and objectives.
7.1.a DOD/DOE 1. Regional and/or sitespecific plans for conservation, protection,
and restoration, proposed by agencies,
scientists, and/or stakeholders, are
addressed during forest management
planning.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF consulted extensively with “Native American Tribes,
other federal agencies, State and local government,
individuals, and organizations…” to identify issues and
collect information on designing the alternatives considered
in the DEIS. Ten informational open houses and five public
hearings were held when the DEIS was released. CNNF
collected 3,000 unique responses on the draft documents.
Appendix A of the FEIA details the public involvement in
LRMP development.
As examples, among others, CNNF incorporated the
following external plans into their planning process:
ƒ USFWS. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery
Plan
ƒ WDNR. 1999. Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
ƒ USFWS. 1992 (revision). Recovery Plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf
ƒ USFWS. 1991. Fassett's Locoweed Recovery Plan
ƒ WDNR Forestry BMPs for Water Quality
ƒ USFS. 1996. Gypsy Moth Management in the United
States
ƒ WDNR. 2000. Management Plan and Environmental
Assessment for the Clam Lake Elk Herd.
ƒ WDNR. 1986. Pine Marten Recovery Plan.
ƒ WDNR. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan
ƒ WDNR. Northern Initiatives – A Strategic Plan for the
Next Decade
ƒ
WDNR: Deer Population Goals and Harvest
Management
AC 7.1.a.1. Provisions for outdoor
recreation are integrated with other uses
and appropriately incorporated into
management objectives and planning
documents.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The LRMP contains 12 Objectives specifically addressing
the CNNF goal of “Maintain[ing] or enhanc[ing] the diversity
and quality of recreation experiences within acceptable
limits of change to ecosystem stability and condition.”
Access and recreation opportunities are analyzed within the
FEIS.
7.1.b. Description of forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and
ownership status, socioeconomic conditions, and profile of adjacent land
7.1.b.1. The management plan describes
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
the timber, fish and wildlife, harvested nontimber forest products, soils, and nonThe FEIS and LRMP describe the timber, fish, and wildlife
economic forest resources.
resources, as well as the non-timber forest products, soils,
and recreational/aesthetic resources of the Forest. Fish are
addressed more generally, with more emphasis on
describing appropriate habitat. RT&E and RFSS wildlife and
plant species are well described, with other species more
generally described. The FEIS discusses the direct, indirect,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 110 of 200
and cumulative effects of the Selected Alternative on these
resources and their habitats. However, there is no
discussion of the mineral resources on the Forest.
Additionally, CNNF could not produce records to identify the
ownership status of subsurface rights throughout the forest.
Although the status of subsurface rights is presumably a
matter of public record and is available through county
courthouse records, CNNF does not maintain a current
summary of the subsurface rights ownership on the Forest.
Consequently, it is not clear where subsurface rights are
held by the public, where they are held by private entities
and how these ownerships may effect the management of
the forest (CAR 6/06).
7.1.b.2. The management plan includes
descriptions of special management areas;
sensitive, rare, threatened, and
endangered species and their habitats; and
other ecologically sensitive features in the
forest.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
7.1.b.3. The management plan includes a
description of past land uses and
incorporates this information into the vision,
goals, and objectives.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
7.1.b.4. The management plan identifies
the legal status of the forest and its
resources (e.g., ownership, usufruct rights
(see Glossary), treaty rights, easements,
deed restrictions, and leasing
arrangements).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
7.1.b.5. The management plan identifies
relevant cultural and socioeconomic issues
(e.g., traditional and customary rights of
use, access, recreational uses, and
employment), conditions (e.g., composition
of the workforce, stability of employment,
and changes in forest ownership and
tenure), and areas of special significance
(e.g., ceremonial and archeological sites).
7.1.b.6. The management plan
incorporates landscape-level
considerations within the ownership and
among adjacent and nearby lands,
including major bodies of water, critical
habitats, and riparian corridors shared with
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Chapter 3 and Appendices J and N of the FEIS, and pages
2-18 to 2-24 of the LRMP, describe special management
areas; sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species
and their habitats; and other ecologically sensitive features.
No
N/A
The FEIS includes past land uses and natural disturbances
for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem components under the
heading “Comparison of Current Conditions to Estimates of
Natural Variability”. This information is incorporated into
current management analyses and influences numerous
objectives such as increasing patch size, reducing the area
of aspen cover type, and stream channel management,
among many others.
No
N/A
The LRMP thoroughly describes the status of most of the
legal aspects of the Forest and customary use rights
associated with the forest. It also clearly describes the
treaty rights, easements, and special permits that are part of
the Forest’s legal status. However, there is no mention of
the mineral resources and subsurface mineral rights that are
held by entities other than CNNF (CAR 6/06)
No
N/A
The FEIS identifies Native American rights and uses,
recreational uses, regional employment patterns, population
characteristics, development pressures, land ownership
patterns, socioeconomic concerns of local residents, and
special management areas. The LRMP provides Standards
and Goals for CNNF land purchases or exchanges.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The LRMP incorporates landscape-level considerations
within the Forest to meet such goals as increased
vegetative patch size and increased late-successional
interior forest. Consideration of the effects of adjacent land
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 111 of 200
adjacent ownerships.
condition and management is often conducted at a broad,
regional level due to the difficulty of obtaining localized data.
Cumulative effects that consider adjacent lands are
provided for: vegetation composition, structure, and
function; landscape patterns; wildlife populations and
habitats; species of viability concern. CNNF has
incorporated various regional plans for maintaining habitats
and connectivity for wildlife species (see Indicator 7.1.a
DOD/DOE 1 findings).
CNNF continues to refine their ability to incorporate more
localized information from adjacent properties. Forest cover
type data is now available through photo interpretation.
CNNF makes the assumptions that all of these lands are all
managed for timber and in a manner similar to how CNNF
manages their lands, in order to provide “maximum effect”
conditions when conducting biological evaluations. CNNF is
in the process of developing accurate forest data for the
five-mile area around all CNNF parcels.
7.1.c. Description of silvicultural and/or other management system
7.1.c.1. Silvicultural system(s) and
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
prescriptions are based on the integration
of ecological and economic characteristics
Silvicultural systems used by CNNF are appropriate to move
(e.g., successional processes, soil
the current forest condition to the desired future condition
characteristics, existing species
and are based on assessments of site quality (i.e.,
composition and structures, desired future
vegetative habitat type) and successional processes
conditions, and market conditions). (see
(typically relying on available natural regeneration). They
also sub-Criterion 6.3.a)
are consistent with those accepted within the region.
Vegetation management guidelines (specifying such things
as stocking levels, opening sizes, age class distributions,
among others) for each forest cover type are provided in the
LRMP. Appendix F of the FEIS provides detailed
descriptions of the silvicultural systems used in each forest
cover type. Stand-level silvicultural prescriptions are
developed for each stand subject to management. The
current CNNF silvicultural prescription format (developed in
early 2006) is an improvement over the prescriptions that
were completed for earlier projects. The new format
provides consistency across the Forest and, importantly,
provides a detailed schedule by year of the future
management activities that should occur in the stand to
meet stand objectives. All prescriptions written for sites
visited during the test evaluation (with prescriptions
developed over the past five years) provided clear direction
on the silvicultural treatment to be applied. Areas in need of
silvicultural treatment are prepared for harvest as long as
they meet minimally commercial volumes.
7.1.c.2. Prescriptions are prepared prior to Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
harvesting, site preparation, pest control,
burning, and planting and are available to
CNNF develops written prescriptions for all activities
people who implement the prescriptions.
described in the Indicator. These prescriptions contain
sufficient detail to clearly inform those implementing the
prescription of the prescription requirements. Silvicultural
prescriptions include: stand description and summary stand
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 112 of 200
data, objectives, marking guidelines, mitigation measures,
and operating restrictions. Pest control prescriptions (in EA
or contract) provide detail on such things as method of
control, chemical application rates, and safety procedures.
Burn plans include treatment objectives, complexity
elements, and ignition/holding/mop up instructions, among
other items. Prescriptions are provided to field staff and
details are reviewed with marking crews, burn crews, etc.,
prior to implementation. Additionally, timber sale purchasers
are advised by CNNF staff of pertinent contract provisions
(such as reserve areas, tree marking schemes, slash
disposal, etc.) that will be required to implement the
prescription.
7.1.d. Rationale for the rate of annual harvest and species selection (see criterion 5.6)
7.1.d.1. Calculations for the harvests of
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
both timber and non-timber products are
detailed or referenced in the management
The methodology and rationale for calculating timber
plan and are based on net growth, yield,
harvest levels are thoroughly described in planning
stocking, and regeneration data. (see also
documentation (see pages B35-B48 of Appendix B of the
5.6.b)
FEIS). See also Indicator 5.6.a findings. While permits for
non-timber forest product harvesting contain individual limits
on the amounts collected, appropriate total annual harvest
levels for non-timber forest products (such as boughs,
Lycopodium, moss) are not addressed. Objective 2.5 of the
LRMP requires CNNF to ensure that harvest levels for these
products are “sustainable”. CNNF has not documented
these levels (CAR 3/06).
7.1.d.2. Species selection meets the social Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and economic goals and objectives of the
forest owner or manager and leads to the
CNNF relies on native species, targeting them to
desired future conditions while maintaining appropriate vegetative habitat types, to move the forest
or improving the ecological composition,
toward the desired future forest condition described in the
structures, and functions of the forest.
LRMP. Where tree species are suited to the site, they will
meet the economic needs of the forest owner. CNNF works
toward improving the ecological structure of the Forest by
increasing the presence of species such as white pine
through planting and retaining species such as eastern
hemlock in management areas.
7.1.d.3. The management plan addresses
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
potentially disruptive effects of pests,
storms, droughts, and fires as they relate to CNNF has completed a historical analysis of the frequency
allowable cut.
and patterns of natural disturbances. There is no formal
discussion within CNNF’s planning documents regarding the
effects of disruptions in the forest on the ASQ. These
disruptions could be either catastrophic changes (such as
wide-scale blow down) or subtle changes (such as
reductions in growth rates due to insect or disease
outbreaks). However, given the large size of the CNNF land
base, it would likely take a substantial disruption to result in
a change to the current ASQ. While ASQ is revised every
10-15 years as part of the Forest planning process, there is
also an amendment process that can be implemented prior
to plan revision if conditions would warrant. CNNF proposed
that since current harvest levels are so far below current
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 113 of 200
ASQ, there would be little need for amending ASQ for all but
the most extreme situations.
7.1.e. Provisions for monitoring forest growth and dynamics (see also Principle 8)
7.1.e.1. The management plan includes a
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
description of procedures to monitor the
forest.
Chapter 4 of the Plan describes monitoring and evaluation
protocols. Table 4-1 defines minimum legally required
monitoring. Tables 4.2 a-c provide monitoring questions by
Forest Objective. Frequency of monitoring/evaluation and
the required level of precision are quantified for all actions
and questions.
7.1.f. Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments (see also Criterion 6.1.)
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Environmental safeguards are extensively documented in
numerous documents and thoroughly based on
environmental assessments (see findings associated with
Criterion 6.1).
7.1.g. Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species. (see
also Criterion 6.3.)
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Plans for the identification and protection of RT&E species,
RFSS, and other sensitive species and communities are
well detailed in various planning documents (see findings
associated with Criterion 6.2).
7.1.h. Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management
activities, and land ownership.
7.1.h.1. The management plan includes
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
maps of such forest characteristics as:
relevant landscape-level factors; property
Planning documentation includes maps displaying: the
boundaries; roads; areas of timber
relationship of CNNF lands to the surrounding regional
production; forest types by age class;
landscape, property boundaries, roads, Management Areas,
topography; soils; riparian zones; springs
forest cover types, soils and topography, aquatic features,
and wetlands; archaeological sites; areas
wetlands, cultural resources, sensitive species locations and
of cultural and customary use; locations of
habitats, and HCVF areas.
sensitive, rare, threatened, and/or
endangered species and their habitats; and Timber sale maps show sale and purchase unit boundaries,
designated High Conservation Value
property boundaries, private lands, roads, no cut and
Forests.
Reserve Areas, slash disposal zones, streams and rivers,
and treatment codes. Cover types adjacent to sale units are
not typically shown, nor are embedded wetland areas
consistently labeled on maps. There is a fair degree of
variability in map quality and information content across the
Districts (OBS 15/06).
CNNF maintains a centralized GIS for the entire Forest.
CNNF has recently added staff to their GIS program to
address needs identified by CNNF. There are concerns
regarding the timeliness and consistency of updating spatial
maps across the Forest, since each District is currently
responsible for providing data to the GIS staff for updating
District-level maps. The GIS staff has developed a “GIS
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 114 of 200
Program Action Plan (April 18, 2006) that developed
protocols for addressing data management and analysis,
GIS staff interactions with Districts (e.g., for consistent
updating), and transferring GIS knowledge, among other
issues. These protocols would improve the Forest-wide
mapping and analysis process. However, no timeline for
implementation of these protocols has been established
(OBS 15/06).
7.1.i. Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used. (see also
Criterion 6.5)
7.1.i.1. Harvesting machinery and
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
techniques are discussed in the
management or harvest plan and are
A relatively small variety of harvesting machinery is
specifically matched to forest conditions in
available across the region, consisting of processors and
order to minimize damage.
forwarders, or a small number of cable skidders. R9Optional Provision CT6.42 of the harvest contract is used to
specify harvesting machine characteristics (e.g., width) that
promote achieving management objectives. The LRMP and
Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 Chapter 2 describe
criteria to assess soil damage and minimize detrimental
impacts. CNNF relies on prescribing acceptable levels of
soil damage and seasonal restrictions to avoid soil impacts.
While acceptable levels of damage are not defined for
resources other than soils (see OBS 6/06), residual stand
damage was low at all sites visited.
7.1.i.2. Conditions for each timber sale are Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
established by a timber sale contract or
written harvest prescription and
CNNF timber sale contracts and maps provide thorough
accompanying timber sale map.
descriptions of harvesting requirements and the
responsibilities of the purchaser.
NOTES: CAR 3/06: (see Criterion 5.2)
CAR 6/06: CNNF shall clearly describe in its planning documents the mineral resources on the Forest,
the status and location of the subsurface rights owned by entities other than CNNF, and the effects of this
ownership on the Forest resource.
OBS 15/06: CNNF could develop and implement protocols to establish a consistent mapping template for
use on all Districts that identifies all pertinent information.. CNNF could establish a timeline for
implementing various components of the GIS Action Plan to ensure that these improvements to the
program are completed in a timely manner.
7.2 The management plan shall be periodically revised to incorporate the results of monitoring or
new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental, social
and economic circumstances.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
7.2.a. Operational components of the
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
management plan are reviewed and
revised as necessary or at least every 5
The NFMA and 36 CFR 219.10(g) Revision require that
years. Components of the long-term
forest plans be reviewed every five years and revised at
(strategic) management plan are revised
least every 15 years (more frequently if forest conditions
and updated at the end of the planning
significantly change). The Forest Supervisor can
period or when other changes in the
recommend revision at any time based on monitoring and
management require it. (see also Criterion evaluation results.
8.4)
The 2004 LRMP resulted from a revision need “…based on
new information, changed conditions, and public comments
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 115 of 200
since [the prior plans] were developed. The Chequamegon
and Nicolet National Forests were separate units when their
1986 plans were approved. Since they are now combined
into a single administrative unit (Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forests), one Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and one Forest Plan have been prepared for both
Forests.” Revision work began in 1996. The 2004 Plan
contains a clear discussion of the need for revising the
Forest Plan in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The need for
implementing changes to management direction for
numerous actions are described throughout the LRMP and
FEIS.
CNNF utilizes a five-year strategy plan for all activities on
the Forest that can be revised annually as the Forest
situation requires.
NOTES: None
7.3. Forest workers shall receive adequate training and supervision to ensure proper
implementation of the management plan.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
7.3.a. The forest owner or manager
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
assures that workers are qualified to
implement the management plan (see also CNNF and the USDA Forest Service provide training
Criterion 4.2).
courses for staff throughout the year. Many positions have
ongoing training requirements to meet the qualifications for
the position. Each CNNF employee, with their supervisor,
develops an Individual Development Plan that documents
training needs and tracks their progress toward completing
the Forest Plan. Also, there is an Intranet site, reviewed by
the auditors, which contains a link to provide guidance to
employees to enable them to facilitate the Forest Plan.
Program managers have a list of qualifications that are
required of employees, which is maintained in a centralized
database system. However, there is no centralized tracking
of training attended by employee. This is left to employees
and not tracked by the CNNF (OBS 16/06).
The CNNF employees implied that most loggers participate
in training (e.g., [Forest Industry Safety and Training
Alliance, Inc. (FISTA)]; however, this is not required by
CNNF and the CNNF has no assurances this training is
being done for all woods workers (OBS 17/06). While CNNF
does not provide, or require, formal training for contractors
and woods workers, harvesting requirements are
consistently relayed to contractors and their workers on a
project-by-project basis. For example, Harvest
Administrators and certified Timber Sale Administrators are
trained to convey information to logging contractors. Preharvest meetings to convey information to logging crews
regarding sale units are held before every timber harvest.
These pre-harvest meetings are often conducted in the
office and not on site, although this varies by District. Off-
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 116 of 200
site pre-harvest meetings may not be the most effective way
to convey site-specific information (e.g., location of
wetlands, reserve areas) (OBS 18/06). CNNF staff visit
active harvest areas on a weekly basis to ensure that
prescriptions are being implemented as planned.
Since all merchantable trees must be marked by CNNF prior
to cutting, timber markers may mark more trees for harvest
in machine access areas than necessary to ensure that
problems with “operational” trees do not occur during
harvest. One instance of this was observed in the field.
Training on the access requirements for various pieces of
logging equipment would assist in minimizing this concern
(OBS 19/06).
7.3.b. The management plan is
understandable, comprehensive, and
readily available to field personnel.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
The CNNF Forest Plan is well-written and is readily
available to all employees. As a public entity, this type of
transparency is not only expected but mandated by law. As
previously stated, there is an Intranet site, reviewed by the
auditors, which contains a link to provide guidance to
employees to enable them to facilitate the Forest Plan.
NOTES: OBS 16/06: CNNF could improve the likelihood that Forest-wide staff are adequately trained and
qualified by maintaining training records for each employee.
OBS 17/06: CNNF could consider additional strategies (e.g. require contractors and woods workers to
participate in formal training programs) to ensure consistently high standards for harvesting activities.
OBS 18/06: CNNF could require all pre-harvest meetings to be held on site to ensure that
miscommunication does not occur.
OBS 19/06: CNNF could provide timber markers with training on the access requirements for harvesting
operations to ensure that the correct trees are marked for access purposes.
7.4. While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly
available a summary of the primary elements of the management plan, including those listed in
Criterion 7.1.
Applicability Note to Criterion 7.4: Forest owners or managers of private forests may withhold proprietary
information (e.g., the nature and extent of their forest resource base, marketing strategies, and other
financial information). (see also Criterion 8.5)
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
7.4.a. A management plan summary that
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
outlines management objectives (from subCriterion 7.1.a.), whether on private lands
CNNF provides in print and digital form an FEIS Summary
or the land pool under a resource
and Record of Decision which meet the intent of this
manager, is available to the public at a
Criterion. Additionally, CNNF provides the LRMP, FEIS, and
reasonable fee. Additional elements of the numerous related documents in print, digitally, and on their
plan may be excluded, to protect the
website. CNNF provides this material broadly and upon
security of environmentally sensitive and/or request.
proprietary information.
7.4.b. Managers of public forests make
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
forestry-related information easily
accessible (e.g., available on websites) for All forestry-related information required under Criterion 7.1
public review, including that required by
(except that held as confidential, such as RT&E and cultural
Criterion 7.1.
resource locations) is readily accessible on CNNF’s website
or upon request.
NOTES: None
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 117 of 200
PRINCIPLE 8. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT - Monitoring shall be conducted -appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management -- to assess the condition of the
forest, yields of forest products, chain of custody, management activities and their social and
environmental impacts.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
8.1 The frequency and intensity of monitoring should be determined by the scale and intensity of
forest management operations as well as the relative complexity and fragility of the affected
environment. Monitoring procedures should be consistent and replicable over time to allow
comparison of results and assessment of change.
Applicability Note to Principle 8: On small and medium-sized forests, an informal, qualitative assessment
might be appropriate. On large forests and intensively managed forests, formal, quantitative monitoring is
required.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformances. CNNF has a well-designed, consistent, and
replicable environmental monitoring strategy and is in conformance at the Criterion level. Minor nonconformances are due to missing components.
8.1.a. The frequency of monitoring
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
activities follows the schedule outlined in
the management plan.
Tables 4.1 (minimum legally required monitoring and
evaluation) and 4.2a-c (LRMP monitoring questions by goal)
in Chapter 4 of the LRMP detail the monitoring and
evaluation activities and schedules for the Forest. The
minimum legally required monitoring and evaluation is
established by the NFMA and 36 CFR 219.
The publicly-available FY05 Monitoring and Evaluation
report provides confirmation by the Forest Supervisor that
CNNF has met the monitoring intent of the LRMP and 36
CFR 219. However, upon review of the minimum legally
required monitoring content of the report, monitoring data on
Canada yew (a Management Indicator Species) and the
actual and estimated cost comparison (36CFR219.12(k)(3))
were not found. CNNF confirmed that they had overlooked
including monitoring data for these items in the report, that
their internal review had already discovered this gap, and
that it will be remedied in the FY06 report. While CNNF did
not report results due to an oversight, they did complete the
legally required monitoring. However, the FY05 report also
did not address several LRMP Objectives (e.g., 2.1d, 2.1j,
2.1l, among others) that require annual monitoring, although
not necessarily annual evaluation.
CNNF develops an annual monitoring plan to identify and
schedule specific monitoring activities for the year. These
monitoring plans vary from year to year and are subject to
budgetary constraints. As stated in the Draft Monitoring and
Evaluation guide, “Budgetary constraints will affect the level
of monitoring that can be done in a particular fiscal year. If
budget levels limit the Forest’s ability to perform all
monitoring tasks, then those items specifically required by
law are given the highest priority. The annual monitoring
plan identifies which items will be measured, and how the
monitoring questions will be answered.” However, the
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 118 of 200
LRMP provides a comprehensive list of “monitoring
questions” in Table 4.2 with monitoring frequencies explicitly
defined for each issue. By listing these monitoring
questions with specific frequencies in the LRMP, the clear
inference is that these variables will be monitored in keeping
with the defined frequencies. Further, under the heading
“Monitoring Questions” on page 4-4 of the LRMP, CNNF
states “The purpose of monitoring questions is to determine
what type of information to gather and how often to gather it
in order to address the goals and objectives. Some
resources need to be monitored annually to produce trend
data.” This statement only serves to reinforce that certain
issues will be monitored every year, as identified in Table
4.2.
While the monitoring questions listed in Table 4.2 are not
legally mandated, and given that specific monitoring
frequencies are identified in the LRMP, by omitting certain
variables identified as requiring annual monitoring, CNNF is
not following the schedule outlined in the LRMP. (CAR
7/06).
8.1.b. Monitoring is carried out to assess:
• The degree to which management
goals and objectives have been
achieved;
• Deviations from the management
plan;
• Unexpected effects of
management activities;
• Social (see Criterion 4.4) and
environmental (see Criterion 6.1)
effects of management activities.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
From Chapter 4 of the LRMP, CNNF monitoring and
evaluation are designed to answer: “1. Did we do what we
said we were going to do? This question answers how well
the direction in the Forest Plan is being implemented.
Collected information is compared to Objectives, Standards,
Guidelines, and Management Area direction. 2. Did it work
how we said it would? This question answers whether the
application of standards and guidelines is achieving
objectives, and whether objectives are achieving goals. 3. Is
our understanding and science correct? This question
answers whether the assumptions and predicted effects
used to formulate the goals and objectives are valid. This is
a well-designed strategy that will provide CNNF with the
ability to modify its management methods as information
indicates.
Tables 4.2a-c in the LRMP provide quantifiable questions
for establishing whether the LRMP Objectives are being met
on the Forest, as well as documenting deviations from the
plan and unexpected effects of management. The
environmental effects of CNNF management are clearly
being monitored. CNNF does receive direct input from the
public at fairly regular intervals through various meetings
and interactions at visitor centers, district offices and
campgrounds for example. CNNF also monitors annual
payments made to local counties. While recreational
Objectives are clearly addressed in monitoring social
effects, it is less clear that other social effects (such as on
forest industry employment) of the CNNF management are
being formally monitored. See also findings associated with
Indicator 8.2.d.2 (OBS 20/06).
8.1.c. Public and large, private land
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
No
N/A
Page 119 of 200
owners or managers take the lead in
identifying, initiating, and supporting
research efforts to address pertinent
ecological questions. Small and medium
private landowners or managers use
information that has been developed by
researchers and other managers.
CNNF is a partner with external entities in numerous
research projects on the Forest and willingly facilitates
research projects developed by external entities.
CNNF staff are banned from directly conducting research
projects since that role is to be accomplished by the USFS
Northern Forest Experiment Station. The Station’s research
priorities may not always address issues of concern to
CNNF, which is why CNNF actively partners with other
entities.
NOTES: CAR 7/06: CNNF shall ensure that monitoring is completed on schedule as detailed in the
LRMP.
OBS 20/06: In order to facilitate timely and meaningful assessments of their impacts on local
communities, CNNF could monitor socio-economic effects (such as on forest industry employment) of
management activities on a more frequent basis.
8.2. Forest management should include the research and data collection needed to monitor, at a
minimum, the following indicators:
a) yield of all forest products harvested,
b) growth rates, regeneration, and condition of the forest,
c) composition and observed changes in the flora and fauna,
d) environmental and social impacts of harvesting and other operations, and
e) cost, productivity, and efficiency of forest management.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
8.2.a. Yield of all forest products harvested
8.2.a.1. The forest owner or manager
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
maintains records of standing inventories
of timber and harvest volumes of timber
Standing timber inventories by species and condition class
and non-timber species (quality and
(acceptable, unacceptable, cull, etc.) are maintained within
quantity).
CNNF’s forest inventory system. CNNF does not measure
tree grade or monitor tree grade change over time for those
components of their forest for which published tree grades
exist. As a result, in those areas where timber quality is a
management variable of interest and timber quality is not
superseded by other management goals, the effects of
management on timber quality can be only vaguely
ascertained (OBS 21/06). Timber harvest volumes are
recorded by species and product.
All permits for harvesting non-timber products by non-Tribal
members have harvest limits for each permit. CNNF is able
to estimate the harvest by non-Tribal people by totaling the
maximum harvest volumes permitted. GLIFWC conducts
surveys to monitor actual harvest levels for conifer boughs,
Lycopodium, ginseng, birch bark, and firewood. Data from
these surveys is compiled and can be made available to
CNNF. The GLIFWC report “Tribal Wild Plant Gathering on
National Forest Lands, Harvest Season 2003-2004” was
reviewed.
Enforcement occurs through CNNF timber staff and law
enforcement staff (of which there are four Law Enforcement
Officers for the CNNF and approximately 12 Forest
Protection Officers per District). Citations were reviewed that
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 120 of 200
confirmed that theft of timber and non-timber resources is
prosecuted when discovered. Additionally, Native American
gathering rights are permitted through the Tribes and
GLIFWC and enforced on CNNF lands by Tribal and
GLIFWC wardens.
8.2.b. Growth rates, regeneration, and condition of the forest
8.2.b.1. An inventory system is established Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and records are maintained for:
(1) Timber growth and mortality (for
CNNF uses multiple databases for monitoring the condition
volume control systems);
of the timber resource, including CDS, GIS, FIA, and
(2) Stocking, and regeneration;
FSVeg. Forest inventory databases include information on
(3) Stand-level and forest-level
trees (species, volume, stocking, mortality, grade),
composition and structure (e.g.,
understory vegetation (including tree regeneration), and
by use of tools, such as ecological down woody debris. CNNF continuously updates their forest
classification systems);
inventory databases with the objective of updating 10% of
(4) Abundance, regeneration, and
the suitable timber management acreage on an annual
habitat conditions of non-timber
basis. Currently, based on their estimates, CNNF is
forest products;
conducting updates on 6-7% of this acreage annually.
(5) Terrestrial and aquatic features;
CNNF classifies their land base using the National
(6) Soil characteristics (e.g., texture,
Hierarchy of Ecological Units and vegetative habitat typing.
drainage, existing erosion);
(7) Pest conditions.
While CNNF allows an active program of harvesting nontimber forest products and monitors the quantity of these
harvests, CNNF documentation does not clearly address the
abundance, regeneration, and habitat conditions of these
resources (CAR 8/06).
Terrestrial features (including NNIS) and soil data reside in
NRIS Terra and/or the GIS. Aquatic features and quality are
inventoried in NRIS Water, EPA’s Storage and Retrieval
system, GIS, and several individual databases. Pest
conditions are monitored by USFS or WDNR staff and
records are maintained by CNNF.
Large amounts of data are collected by CNNF and
numerous databases are used to store this data. CNNF
recognizes that appropriate linkages are not yet in place
between all databases to allow efficient and consistent data
management, and analysis (OBS 22/06).
8.2.c. Composition and observed changes in the flora and fauna
8.2.c.1. Forest owners or managers
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
periodically monitor the forest for changes
in major habitat elements and in the
The CNNF LRMP describes monitoring guidelines for
occurrence of sensitive, rare, threatened,
changes in major habitat elements and occurrence of RT&E,
or endangered species or communities.
RFSS, and other sensitive species and communities. The
frequency of monitoring and evaluation are quantified for
such species and communities.
The CNNF monitors changes in major habitat elements
such as stand- and forest-level composition and structure,
long-lived conifer components in upland-lowland transition
areas, distribution and amount of successional stages, and
the size and locations of temporary and “permanent” habitat
openings at 5-year intervals (see findings associated with
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 121 of 200
Criterion 8.2.b). Longer-term transitions from early
successional habitats to late-successional types are
monitored on a 10-year cycle. CNNF also annually monitors
large forest disturbances (>100 ac) to ensure adequate
retention of structure and coarse woody debris (CWD)
during salvage operations. These habitat elements as well
as locations of wetlands, major streams and rivers, and soil
resources have been mapped across the CNNF and the
GIS is updated as changes occur in individual stands,
projects, or larger areas. Aquatic ecosystems are
extensively monitored. Efforts to restore stream and lake
habitats as well as stream crossing, sedimentation, and fish
passage projects are monitored annually. Other efforts,
including monitoring aquatic impacts of ATV use, large
wood restoration projects, cold-water stream restoration,
relocation of roads out of riparian habitats, and similar
projects are monitored at least every 5 years. The LRMP
calls for 10-year monitoring of ecological communities of
special concern within protected areas. The Forest is also
monitored with permanent vegetation plots, Forest Inventory
and Analysis plots, and stand examination updates, among
other activities. However, these monitoring efforts largely
focus on timber-based inventory data. Long-term,
ecologically-relevant data on forest characteristics, such as
understory plant species composition and structure, vertical
layering of vegetative strata, and distribution, size and decay
classes of snags and CWD are not consistently monitored
(OBS 23/06).
The CNNF also works with collaborators to monitor more
detailed changes in specific habitat elements as a result of
management activities. For example, researchers from UWGreen Bay are working with the CNNF to determine shortterm effects of selectively logging northern hardwood stands
on understory plant species composition and diversity in
winter-logged sites and summer-logged sites.
Implementation monitoring is conducted to determine
conformance with LRMP guidelines for retention of wildlife
den tree and snag habitat elements during timber harvests,
but monitoring appears limited in scope (e.g., 1-2 timber
sale units/district/year) and unsystematic (OBS 24/06).
Further, monitoring currently is not conducted to track
adequate retention of CWD during normal timber harvest
operations at the stand or forest levels (OBS 24/06).
The CNNF is legally required by the NMFA and other Forest
Service regulations to monitor forest-wide distribution and
population trends of RT&E species and communities, RFSS,
Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their
Management Indicator Habitats (MIH). CNNF uses staff
and cooperators to regularly and extensively monitor these
species and communities. The Forest Plan calls for annual
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 122 of 200
monitoring of RT&E species and RFSS, and 5-year
monitoring of recovery and conservation strategies for ESA
T&E species and habitat conditions for RFSS. Examples of
RT&E, RFSS, MIS, and MIH monitored by CNNF and
cooperators in FY2005 included gray wolves, bald eagles,
northern goshawks, American marten, northern blue
butterflies and their host plant the dwarf bilberry, pine
barrens, and brook trout. There is an annual update of the
database tracking such species and communities, through
the work of ecologists and biologists at both the federal and
state level.
The audit team visited several sites within the Moquah
Barrens Wildlife Area, where efforts to restore globally rare
pine barrens (an MIH) have occurred since 1963. CNNF
has initiated a cooperative effort with Northland College and
the Sand County Foundation to monitor effects of prescribed
fire treatments on vegetation responses and the overall
effectiveness of pine barren restoration efforts. Other MIS
and MIH evaluated by CNNF are identified in Appendix II of
the Forest Plan.
CNNF annually monitors beaver populations to ensure
adequate representation of wetland ecosystems across the
landscape while protecting key cold water stream habitats
for species such as brook trout. During the last 14-16 years,
CNNF and cooperators also have conducted annual surveys
for migratory and resident breeding birds on both the
Chequamegon and Nicolet land bases. For example, the
16-year-old Nicolet National Forest Bird Survey (NNFBS)
represents the longest-running volunteer monitoring
program on any U.S. national forest. Collectively these
surveys represent an important long-term data set on trends
of both migratory and resident bird species.
8.2.d. Environmental and social impacts of harvesting and other operations
8.2.d.1. The environmental effects of siteConformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
disturbing activities are assessed (e.g.,
road construction and repair, harvesting,
Sale administrators actively monitor sale units to assess
and site preparation).
effects as they are being harvested. Data collected during
each site visit on erosion, landings, trails, and road
maintenance/closure is recorded on Timber Sale Inspection
Reports. Road construction projects are monitored as
needed during construction and findings are documented on
the Contract Daily Diary. Soil Impact Monitoring Reports are
compiled by the Forest Soil Scientist based on field review
of harvest sites. Both CNNF staff and external agencies
monitor CNNF lands (ongoing for CNNF staff and
periodically for external agencies) for compliance with state
BMPs for water quality. CNNF lands are scheduled to have
30 timber sales reviewed by external entities in FY06.
8.2.d.2. Creation or maintenance of local
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
jobs and public responses to management
activities are monitored.
The CNNF’s FEIS contained a detailed assessment of job
creation and maintenance, both under current conditions
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 123 of 200
and under various alternatives proposed for the LRMP.
Economic impact analysis was used to assess direct and
indirect employment levels from impacts of CNNF
management on local economies. The CNNF primarily
contributes jobs (and income) to three Economic Impact
Areas: 1) The Northern Wisconsin Economic Impact Area
consisting of 15 counties in northern Wisconsin and
Michigan; 2) the Wisconsin Pulp and Paper Economic
Impact Area, including nine counties in east central
Wisconsin; and 3) the Northern Minnesota Economic Impact
Area. The FEIS also contains public responses to proposed
management activities by communities and other
stakeholders. However, the creation and/or maintenance of
regional jobs resulting from CNNF management activities is
not monitored beyond the FEIS process during LRMP
revision, which could be as long as 18 years. Given the
economic importance of the CNNF to surrounding
communities, these economic variables could be performed
more frequently in order to provide meaningful information.
(OBS 20/06).
In addition, NVUM studies (done every five years) monitor
recreation visitor responses to recreational activities,
particularly for developed overnight sites and activities in
forested areas. This study also documents attendance (2.1
million annual visitors in 2003) and produces an economic
impact analysis, which tracks employment in the
surrounding area related both directly and indirectly to
recreation.
8.2.d.3. Sites of special significance to
American Indians are monitored in
consultation with tribal representatives (see
also Principle 3).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Sites of special significance are monitored in consultation
with Tribal Bands (See Principle 3). SmartWood viewed
field areas where oversight between the CNNF and the
Tribes has successfully protected areas of concern.
8.2.e. Cost, productivity, and efficiency of forest management
8.2.e.1. Forest owners or managers
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
monitor the cost and revenues of
management in order to assess
Project costs and revenues are well documented, as
productivity and efficiency.
required by federal law. An analysis of feasibility is
conducted prior to the initiation of projects. The CNNF
keeps records of expenditures and revenues of all forest
operations and internally audits them annually. The cost
side is built on work plans targeted for acres slated for forest
practices (e.g., reforestation) or on non-target items such as
campgrounds, depending on the project.
The CNNF develops an overall balanced budget in line with
OMB guidelines and the staff looks at the budget during
execution of activities and after they are complete. This
requires documentation of costs associated with carrying
out planned management prescriptions as compared with
costs estimated in the LRMP. The budget is balanced
during the year so that allocations, in line with priorities,
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 124 of 200
balance out cost overruns for the year. The USDA Forest
Service’s Albuquerque Service Center audits the final
balance sheet. The soon to be enacted EMS will further
enhance the efficiency for monitoring the budget.
NOTES: CAR 8/06: CNNF inventory systems shall include the abundance, regeneration, and habitat
conditions of non-timber forest products (especially Lycopodium and moss) that are harvested on the
Forest.
OBS 21/06: CNNF could monitor hardwood tree grades on the Forest to quantify that actual changes in
the grade distribution are consistent with the forest commodity goal (Goal 2.5) of the Forest.
OBS 22/06: CNNF could continue to aggressively address their concerns with consistent data collection
and the linkage of the various databases used on the Forest.
OBS 23/06: CNNF could develop and incorporate long-term monitoring data collection on ecologicallyrelevant forest attributes such as such as understory plant species composition and structure, vertical
layering of vegetative strata, and distribution, size and decay classes of snags and CWD into its
monitoring program.
OBS 24/06: CNNF could develop more extensive and systematic stand-level and forest-wide monitoring
(of implementation and effectiveness) of wildlife den tree, snag, and coarse woody debris retention
associated with regular timber harvest activities.
8.3. Documentation shall be provided by the forest manager to enable monitoring and certifying
organizations to trace each forest product from its origin, a process known as the "chain-ofcustody."
Applicability Note: For chain-of-custody management requirements, see Section 3.6 of Chain of Custody
Standards, FSC Accreditation Manual.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF does not have a formal chain of custody (CoC)
system to facilitate the tracking of forest products from their
origin (CAR 10/06). While key elements associated with
control of forest products to and at the forest gate and
associated accounting of products sales are well developed,
CNNF would need to develop new CoC procedures. Once
harvested forest products leave the landing, they leave the
jurisdiction of the CNNF. There is a solid record of
documentation of species, grade, and volume of forest
products by payment unit removed from the landing. This
documentation is retained in the Supervisor’s Office at the
CNNF. See Appendix IV findings.
NOTES: CAR 10/06: CNNF shall develop, document and apply procedures for chain-of-custody. This
system shall include:
• a system to include FMO FSC certificate code and certified description of products on sales and
shipping documentation (CoC 5)
• a system to ensure that all use of the FSC/SW trademarks, as well as public information related to
certification, are submitted to SmartWood for review and approval (CoC 9)
8.4. The results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the implementation and revision of the
management plan.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
8.4.a. Discrepancies between outcomes
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
(i.e., yields, growth, ecological changes)
and expectations (i.e., plans, projections,
One of the prime reasons for revising the previous
anticipated impacts) are appraised and
Chequamegon and Nicolet LRMPs was to incorporate new
taken into account in the subsequent
information and changed forest conditions into the revision.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 125 of 200
management plan.
Monitoring and evaluation to determine how well the LRMP
is working are required under 36 CFR 219. When plan
revision work began, leading to the development of the 2004
LRMP, CNNF produced Analysis of the Management
Situation reports for 10 identified problem issues on the
Forest. These reports, based on monitoring results,
provided clarification for needed changes in management
direction. Additionally, CCNF revises their management
direction prior to full LRMP revision by modifying practices at
the project-level as a result of ongoing monitoring and
evaluation.
A significant concern, on the part of both the auditors and
CNNF staff, is that data is typically spread across several
databases, which are often unable to communicate directly.
This has the potential to impede Forest-wide analyses and
may cause difficulties in comparing management results
with objectives (OBS 22/06).
NOTES: OBS 22/06: (See Criterion 8.2)
8.5. While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly
available a summary of the results of monitoring indicators, including those listed in Criterion 8.2.
Applicability Note to Criterion 8.5: Forest owners or managers of private forests may withhold proprietary
information (e.g., the nature and extent of their forest resource base, marketing strategies, and other
financial information). (see also Criterion 7.4)
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
8.5.a. A summary outlining the results of
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
monitoring is available to the public at a
reasonable fee, whether on private lands
CNNF produces an annual Monitoring and Evaluation
or a land pool under a resource manager
Report that provides information on minimum legally
or group certification.
required monitoring and other monitoring activities
conducted on the Forest for that year. CNNF produced an
End of Decade Monitoring Report in 1998. Additionally,
CNNF will make monitoring data available upon request.
8.5.b. Managers of public forests make
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
information related to monitoring easily
accessible (e.g., available on websites) for CNNF monitoring information is readily available in print or
public review.
digital form on the CNNF website.
NOTES: None
PRINCIPLE 9. MAINTENANCE OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FORESTS Management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or enhance the
attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding high conservation value
forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach.
High Conservation Value Forests are those that possess one or more of the following
attributes:
a)Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant: concentrations of
biodiversity values (e.g., endemism, endangered species, refugia); and/or large
landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where
viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 126 of 200
of distribution and abundance
b) Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems
c)Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g., watershed
protection, erosion control)
d) Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g.,
subsistence, health) and/or critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity
(areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation
with such local communities).
Examples of forest areas that may have high conservation value attributes include, but
are not limited to:
Central Hardwoods:
·
Old growth – (see Glossary) (a)
·
Old forests/mixed age stands that include trees >160 years old (a)
·
Municipal watersheds –headwaters, reservoirs (c)
·
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) ecosystems, as defined by GAP
analysis, Natural Heritage Inventory, and/or the World Wildlife Fund’s Forest
Communities of Highest Conservation Concern, and/or Great Lakes
Assessment (b)
·
Intact forest blocks in an agriculturally dominated landscape (refugia) (a)
·
Intact forests >1000 ac (valuable to interior forest species) (a)
·
Protected caves (a, b, or d)
·
Savannas (a, b, c, or d)
·
Glades (a, b, or d)
·
Barrens (a, b, or d)
·
Prairie remnants (a, b, or d)
North Woods/Lake States:
·
Old growth – (see Glossary) (a)
·
Old forests/mixed age stands that include trees >120 years old (a)
·
Blocks of contiguous forest, > 500 ac, which host RTEs (b)
·
Oak savannas (b)
·
Hemlock-dominated forests (b)
·
Pine stands of natural origin (b)
·
Contiguous blocks, >500 ac, of late successional species, that are managed to
create old growth (a)
·
Fens, particularly calcareous fens (c)
·
Other non-forest communities, e.g., barrens, prairies, distinctive geological
land forms, vernal pools (b or c)
·
Other sites as defined by GAP analysis, Natural Heritage Inventory, and/or the
World Wildlife Fund’s Forest Communities of Highest Conservation Concern
(b)
Note: In the Lake States-Central Hardwoods region, old growth (see Glossary) is both
rare and invariably an HCVF.
In the Lake States-Central Hardwoods region, cutting timber is not permitted in oldgrowth stands or forests.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 127 of 200
Note: Old forests (see Glossary) may or may not be designated HCVFs. They are
managed to maintain or recruit: (1) the existing abundance of old trees and (2) the
landscape- and stand-level structures of old-growth forests, consistent with the
composition and structures produced by natural processes.
Old forests that either have or are developing old-growth attributes, but which have been
previously harvested, may be designated HCVFs and may be harvested under special
plans that account for the ecological attributes that make it an HCVF.
Forest management maintains a mix of sub-climax and climax old-forest conditions in
the landscape.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
9.1. Assessment to determine the presence of the attributes consistent with High Conservation
Value Forests will be completed, appropriate to scale and intensity of forest management.
Applicability Note: Certain information may be withheld from public discussion to protect the attributes
that may be of High Conservation Value. The level of delineation and consultations required is dependent
on the scale and intensity of the operation.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
9.1.a. Attributes and locations of High
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
Conservation Value Forests are
determined by (see “applicability to oldIn characterizing its forest land base, the CNNF has
growth” note in 6.3):
identified, mapped, and protected a number of globally,
• identification of globally scaled
regionally, and locally scaled HCVF’s. However, the process
HCVF attributes that may be
employed by CNNF does not explicitly label HCVFs as
present in the forest
such. Rather CNNF uses their own terminology (e.g.,
special management areas). These HCVF’s include: 85,500
• identification and description of
acres of Old Growth and Natural Features Complexes (88%
regionally and locally scaled
forested) featuring existing or developing old growth forest
HCVF attributes and areas that
as well as other exemplary natural communities; 44,000
may be present in the landscape
acres of Congressionally-designated Wilderness in 5
and/or certified forest
separate areas (Rainbow Lake, Porcupine Lake,
• broadly based consultations with
Headwaters, Blackjack Springs, Whisker Lake); 15,500
stakeholders and scientists
acres of Wilderness Study Areas identified in the Roadless
• public review of proposed HCVF
area Inventory (Flynn Lake, Porcupine Addition, Spring
attributes and areas
Brook); 11 designated and 34 candidate Research Natural
• integration of information from
Areas totaling 2,500 and 32,700 acres, respectively,
consultations and public review
maintained in their natural condition; 66 Special
into proposed HCVF delineations
Management Areas on 63,900 acres that include
• delineation by maps and habitat
outstanding natural, historical, or recreational features
descriptions
maintained in their natural condition; and 41,000 acres
along 228 miles of Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River
Corridors.
Additionally, CNNF conducted a Forest-wide assessment of
each forest cover type to identify potential old growth areas
that currently are not protected under at least one of the
designations listed above. Of approximately 135,000 acres
of forest 90+ years in age (i.e., mature and old growth),
CNNF has identified approximately 1000 acres of potential
old growth that is not under a protected designation.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 128 of 200
However, CNNF has not yet ground-truthed these stands to
confirm their status as old growth or HCVF elements (CAR
5/06).
Individual, site-level HCVF’s such as habitats for RT&E
species, RFSS, MIS, and other rare and sensitive species
are widely scattered and protected across the CNNF
landscape. For example, nest sites of bald eagles, northern
goshawks, and red-shouldered hawks are identified and
buffered. Populations of rare plants are permanently
protected in reserve areas during project-level planning
(also see findings for Criterion 6.2).
CNNF also has identified and restored specific HCVF’s such
as pine barrens (i.e., Moquah Pine Barrens in the Washburn
District). Other non-forest HCVF attributes are protected by
CNNF on a project-level basis including natural open areas,
distinctive geological landforms, and vernal pools. In
addition, CNNF recently designated 7 new Special
Management Areas (SMAs) to protect unique or significant
geological features within the Forest.
As part of the required consultative process initiated by
project level timber sales, CNNF staff are mandated to
consult broadly with stakeholders, scientists, and local
experts. Public review, input, and response to inputs are
also mandated for factors including HCVFs. CNNF
determined attributes and locations of HCVFs through
lengthy and intensive collaboration with many agencies and
scientists, including The WDNR Natural Areas Program,
Natural Areas Preservation Council (an advisory body to the
WDNR Natural Areas Program), WDNR Natural Heritage
Inventory, The Nature Conservancy, USFS Northern
Experiment Station, university scientists, and others.
All currently identified HCVF’s are mapped. Descriptions of
HCVFs as well as the process by which they were identified,
prioritized, and protected are described in the Forest Plan
and supporting documents (e.g., Chapter 3 of both the
Forest Plan and FEIS; Appendices B and N of the Plan
FEIS).
AC 9.1.1. By policy and action, managers
of National Forests shall demonstrate
compliance with Section 2(c) of the
Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act in the course of identifying and
designating HCVF.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF managers comply with Section 2(c) of the Wilderness
Act in the course of identifying and designating wilderness
areas and other HCVF areas as mandated by federal law.
CNNF has identified and protected HVCFs within
designated Wilderness Areas and within Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational River corridors. These include 44,000 acres of
Congressionally-designated Wilderness in 5 separate areas
(Rainbow Lake, Porcupine Lake, Headwaters, Blackjack
Springs, Whisker Lake); 15,500 acres of Wilderness Study
Areas identified in the Roadless Area Inventory (Flynn Lake,
Porcupine Addition, Spring Brook); and 41,000 acres along
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 129 of 200
228 miles of Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Corridors.
CNNF also periodically evaluates new HCVF attributes for
potential designation and protection. For example, during
development of the current Forest Plan, CNNF extensively
evaluated five new rivers for wild, scenic, and recreational
river designations. All of the rivers were determined to be
eligible for consideration as wild, scenic, or recreational
rivers (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix E).
Management guidelines developed for these HCVFs strictly
comply with all provisions of Section 2(c) of the Wilderness
Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These guidelines
are found in Chapter 3 of the current Forest Plan (pp. 22-25
and pp. 45-47).
AC 9.1.2. National Forest managers
review and consider use of existing HCVF
planning tools (e.g. Proforest HCVF Tool
Kit, Canadian National Framework for
HCVF) in the development of a process
for identifying HCVF.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF forest managers did not explicitly review or use
existing HCVF planning tools in previous or existing
processes to (comprehensively) identify HCVFs.
However, the process CNNF used to identify such attributes
was comprehensive, thorough, and complete. CNNF has
used a variety of data and sources to identify old growth and
other HCVFs including the WDNR Natural Heritage
Inventory database, geologic surveys, wildlife habitat
inventories, soil surveys, published and unpublished
research, local experts, landowners, and resource
managers. CNNF staff employed the WDNR’s Natural
Heritage Inventory protocols and general ranking
procedures to evaluate biotic communities for HCVF
potential. This system was developed by The Nature
Conservancy and is used in all 50 states. Additionally,
CNNF used a classification system developed by the
Natural Areas Preservation Council (an advisory body to the
WDNR Natural Areas Program) for assigning levels of
scaled natural area significance (i.e., state, county, local)
based on qualities of these areas.
These processes used to identify natural area HCVFs,
including old growth, are described in Appendix B of the
Forest Plan FEIS. Additional discussion of CNNF
identification and evaluation of old growth HCVFs is found in
Chapter 3 of both the Forest Plan and Plan FEIS. Specific
methodologies for identifying wilderness and wild, scenic,
and recreational river HVCFs are described in Appendices
C and E, respectively, of the Forest Plan FEIS.
NOTES: CAR 5/06: (See Criterion 6.4)
9.2 The consultative portion of the certification process must place emphasis on the identified
conservation attributes, and options for the maintenance thereof.
Criterion Level Remarks: Conformance
Note: Criterion 9.2 is an instruction to
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
FSC-accredited certification bodies. No
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 130 of 200
indicators are required.
Although CNNF does not explicitly label HCVF attributes as
such, it does seek input from regional, state (e.g.,
WDNR),and local stakeholders, scientists, and naturalists to
confirm that it has identified HCVF attributes and correctly
identified their locations within the Forest. Current HCVF
attributes and locations (e.g., old-growth areas, wilderness
areas, research natural areas) are well-established and
recognized as such by interested publics, including
scientists and local experts. Identification, location, and
protection of as yet unidentified HCVF attributes which may
be located within project areas scheduled for timber harvest
or other management operations is facilitated by
consultations with stakeholders, scientists, and natural
resource entities (e.g., WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory,
The Nature Conservancy) and by a mandated process of
public review, input, and USDA Forest Service response to
public input regarding the effects of proposed management
activities.
NOTES: None.
9.3 The management plan shall include and implement specific measures that ensure the
maintenance and/or enhancement of the applicable conservation attributes consistent with the
precautionary approach. These measures shall be specifically included in the publicly available
management plan summary.
Applicability Note to Criterion 9.3: The applicability of the precautionary principle and the consequent
flexibility of forest management vary with the size, configuration, and tenure of the HCVF:
a) More flexibility is appropriate where HCV forest is less intact, larger in area, has a larger area-toperimeter ratio, and its tenure is assured over the long term.
b) Less flexibility is appropriate where HCV forest is more intact, covers a smaller area, has a smaller
area-to-perimeter ratio, and future tenure is uncertain based on social considerations, and is
consistent with Principle 3.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
9.3.a. Forest management plans and
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
activities are appropriate for maintaining,
enhancing and/or restoring attributes that
Although CNNF managers do not specifically identify stands
make the area an HCVF.
and forests that contain HCV attributes as “HCVF”, CNNF
comprehensively protects HCVFs by prohibiting or
restricting management activities that are inconsistent with
their maintenance and restoration. Intensive management
activities (e.g., regular timber harvest, mineral extraction,
grazing) are not allowed within protected Management
Areas (MAs) containing HCVFs. The current Forest Plan
(Chapter 3) explicitly identifies management activities that
are prohibited and permissible within these areas.
Permissible activities are directed towards maintenance or
restoration of characteristics that identify the HCVFs. For
example, within Old Growth and Natural Features
Complexes (MA 8G), timber harvest is not allowed except
as salvage operations when such operations protect or
enhance existing ecological/conservation attributes that
define the HCVFs. Within existing and eligible Wild, Scenic
and Recreational River Corridors (MA 8D), no management
activities are allowed that would change existing or future
wild river status. CNNF does implement control measures
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 131 of 200
for invasive species in old growth, HCVF, wilderness areas
and other special management areas. Timber harvesting is
allowed to occur within scenic segments for the purpose of
restoring or enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, visual
quality, forest health, tree vigor, and promotion of long-lived,
large diameter trees. Within designated Wilderness areas
(MA 5), no timber harvest or other active management
activities are allowed. Management activities are similarly
restricted in other protected areas such that any
management that does occur is directed towards protection,
enhancement, or restoration of HCVF attributes.
9.3.b. Active management in HCVFs is
allowed only when it maintains or
enhances high conservation values.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
9.3.c. The management-plan summary
includes information about HCVF
management without compromising either
the confidentiality of the forest owner or
manager or environmentally and culturally
sensitive features (see also sub-Criterion
7.1.f).
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
In HCVFs outside of Management Areas 5 and 8 (i.e.,
“unprotected” designations), timber harvesting and other
active management activities are allowed only if it does not
compromise conservation values consistent with HCVF
attributes. Active management within designated protected
areas is strictly regulated and restricted so that the purpose
and result of such management is to maintain or enhance
attributes that define the area as an HCVF. These specific
guidelines for safeguarding conservation values of HCVFs
are provided in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan (also see
findings for Indicator 9.3.a).
No
N/A
Although CNNF managers do not specifically identify
stands, forests, or areas that contain HCV attributes as
“HCVF”, Chapter 3 of the current Forest Plan
comprehensively describes standards and guidelines for the
management of each protected Management Area that
contains HCVF attributes. As mandated by law, the Plan is
available to the public. In addition, a summary table of
existing and proposed RNAs, SMAs, and Old Growth &
Natural Features Complexes (MA 8 E, F, and G) on the
CNNF are provided in Appendix N of the Plan FEIS.
Information about management and locations of HCVFs are
disclosed without compromising environmentally and
culturally sensitive features associated with these areas
(e.g., specific, sensitive attributes may be excluded from
maps made available to the general public).
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 132 of 200
9.3.d. Forest owners or managers of
HCVFs (forests and/or stands) coordinate
conservation efforts with forest owners or
managers of other HCVFs in the
landscape.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
CNNF staff consult with a wide variety of external experts
regarding management of HCVFs on the CNNF and within
the broader landscape. Specifically, CNNF has worked with
WDNR State Natural Areas Program, The WI Board of
Commissioners of Public Lands and The Nature
Conservancy to identify and protect HCVF in the
surrounding areas. CNNF has also identified numerous
HCVF’s through a landscape-scale assessment of each
Landtype Association. The results of this analysis were
used in the CNNF Landscape Analysis and Design project,
which in turn was used as part of their LRMP revision
process.
NOTES: None.
9.4. Annual monitoring shall be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the measures
employed to maintain and enhance the applicable conservation attributes.
Criterion Level Remarks: Minor non-conformance
9.4.a. Forest owners or managers of
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
small forests may satisfy this requirement
with informal observations (see 8.1 and
CNNF manages large forests.
8.2.). When observations detect changes,
the changes are documented.
9.4.b. Forest owners or managers of mid- Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
sized and large forests monitor activities
within and adjacent to HCVFs that may
The CNNF Forest Plan contains provisions for long-term
affect HCVF attributes (see Criteria 7.2,
monitoring of protected areas containing HCVFs and other
8.1 and 8.2). Monitoring is adequate to
ecological communities of special concern that represent
track changes in HCV attributes, and may the best examples of those found naturally on the Forest.
include informal observations. When
The Forest Plan calls for 10-year monitoring of protected
monitoring detects changes to HCV
areas including wild and scenic rivers, research natural
attributes, the changes are documented.
areas, special management areas, and old growth areas.
Designated old growth areas (MA 8G) are specifically
monitored on a 10-year cycle to determine if CNNF is
meeting desired conditions within these areas. The Forest
Plan also calls for 5-year monitoring of wilderness and
potential wilderness acres to determine if desired conditions
are being met. Other HCVFs and protected areas are not
monitored on a specific schedule, but are visited and
evaluated opportunistically in conjunction with other issues.
While formal five- and 10-year monitoring protocols are well
defined, monitoring HCVFs on shorter time frames is
inconsistent. For example, CNNF staff stated that few of
their special management areas or wilderness areas had
not yet been assessed for the presence of NNIS and that
there was not yet a plan to do so. CNNF does not have a
consistent approach to annually monitoring some proportion
of their HCVFs for changes in attributes. (CAR 9/06).
NOTES: CAR 9/06: CNNF shall develop a protocol to consistently monitor (at least through informal
observations) HCVF areas on an annual basis for changes in HCV attributes. If changes are detected,
they shall be documented and measures shall be designed to restore the HCV.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 133 of 200
PRINCIPLE 10. PLANTATIONS - Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with
Principles and Criteria 1 - 9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria. While plantations can provide an
array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute to satisfying the world's needs for
forest products, they should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote
the restoration and conservation of natural forests.
Applicability note: Plantations are forest areas lacking most of the principal characteristics and key
elements of native ecosystems, as a result of such human activities as planting, sowing, or intensive
silvicultural treatments like short-term rotations and short-term coppice systems (see Glossary)(see
Criterion 6.9 for use of exotics). Planting, seeding, and coppicing do not necessarily result in plantations.
Non-forest land being afforested becomes a plantation or a managed natural forest based on the owner’s
goals and objectives for the land in question as well as the development of its attributes.
Principle level findings: Tree planting is used on CNNF lands to restore tree species such as white pine,
red oak, and eastern hemlock to the landscape and to address long-term desired future condition goals
for these species on the forest. In addition to these species, other species such as spruce and tamarack
are used to accomplish long-term goals for diversity in forest cover types. Management systems for
planted stands are similar to those used for naturally regenerated stands of the same species. While
currently established natural pine stands will be managed on extended rotations to develop older forest
structures, planted stands will still be managed to at least standard rotation lengths commonly accepted
in the region. Intermediate treatments in both naturally regenerated and planted stands will be identical,
allowing semi-natural ecological structure to develop similarly in both. Any deficiencies in the
management of planted areas will also be found in naturally regenerated areas and will be addressed in
Principles 1-9. Thus, Principle 10 is found to be non-applicable to CNNF plantings.
Criteria and Indicators
Findings
10.1. The management objectives of the plantation, including natural forest conservation and
restoration objectives, shall be explicitly stated in the management plan, and clearly
demonstrated in the implementation of the plan.
Note: The Working Group considers that this criterion is sufficiently explicit and measurable, so does not
require indicators.
10. 1. DOD/DOE 1. Plantations are
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
restored to managed natural forest
conditions.
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.2. The design and layout of plantations should promote the protection, restoration, and
conservation of natural forests, and not increase pressures on natural forests. Wildlife corridors,
streamside zones, and a mosaic of stands of different ages and rotation periods, shall be used in
the layout of the plantation, consistent with the scale of the operation. The scale and layout of
plantation blocks shall be consistent with the patterns of forest stands found within the natural
landscape.
Criterion Level Remarks: Not Applicable
10.2.a. Plantation layout minimizes soil
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
degradation and erosion and protects soil
and water quality by accounting for slope,
aspect, erodibility, and movement of
surface water (see also Criterion 6.5).
10.2.b. Plantations are managed and
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
integrated into the surrounding landscape
in order to improve natural habitats.
10.2.c. For plantation harvests larger
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
than forty acres lacking within-stand
retention, the size of the opening is
justified by credible scientific analysis.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 134 of 200
10.2.d. Plantations may be reConformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
established on existing plantation sites
(see also Criterion 10.5.a.), provided
they are consistent with the management
plan. They may be established on
agricultural lands in historically forested
areas (see also Criterion 6.10).
10.2.e. Regeneration in previously
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
harvested areas reaches a mean height
of at least ten feet or achieves canopy
closure (see Glossary) before adjacent
areas are harvested, unless an earlier
harvest can be justified by credible
scientific analysis. Forest buffers
between harvest units are arranged to
allow contiguous populations of native
species.
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.3. Diversity in the composition of plantations is preferred, so as to enhance economic,
ecological, and social stability. Such diversity may include the size and spatial distribution of
management units within the landscape, number and genetic composition of species, age
classes, and structures.
Criterion Level Remarks: Not Applicable
10.3.a. Forests containing plantations are
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
managed to create and maintain structural
and species diversity that results in viable
wildlife habitat and long-term soil
maintenance and replenishment.
10.3.b. Plantation-management activities
are planned to generate and maintain
long-term employment.
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.4. The selection of species for planting shall be based on their overall suitability for the site
and their appropriateness to the management objectives. In order to enhance the conservation of
biological diversity, native species are preferred over exotic species in the establishment of
plantations and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Exotic species, which shall be used
only when their performance is greater than that of native species, shall be carefully monitored to
detect unusual mortality, disease, or insect outbreaks and adverse ecological impacts.
Applicability Note: See FSC guidelines regarding Criterion 6.8 for use of GMO’s and see Criterion 6.9 for
allowable use of exotic species.
Criterion Level Remarks: Not Applicable
10.4.a. The use of exotic plant species
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
(see Glossary) is contingent on peerreviewed scientific evidence that the
species in question is neither invasive nor
a threat to the indigenous biodiversity. If
non-invasive exotic species of plants are
used, their provenance and location of
use are documented, and their ecological
effects are actively monitored.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 135 of 200
10.4.b. The genetic composition of
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
plantations is suitable for local conditions
and is managed for diversity to avoid
infestations of pests.
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.5 A proportion of the overall forest management area, appropriate to the scale of the
plantation and to be determined in regional standards, shall be managed so as to restore the site
to a natural forest cover.
Criterion Level Remarks: Not Applicable
10.5.a. The ratio of plantations to natural
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
and semi-natural forests (see Glossary),
as well as their spatial distribution,
maintains and/or restores the landscape
to a condition that includes a diversity of
community types, wildlife habitats, and
ecological functions similar to a mosaic
of native forests.
10.5.b. On land converted from nonConformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
forest uses to forest plantation uses, a
percentage of the total area owned in the
landscape is maintained as and/or
restored to natural and semi-natural
forest cover. The minimum percentage
plantation area that is maintained in
semi-natural or natural forest is:
- for 100 acres or less, at least 10
percent.
- for 101 to 1,000 acres, at least 15
percent.
- for 1,001 to 10,000 acres, at least 20
percent.
- for > 10,000 acres, at least 25
percent.
10.5.c. On currently forested land, up to
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
30% of the area may be managed as
plantations (see Glossary). This
percentage is reduced to 15% over a 50year period.
10.5.d. Areas of forest and/or plantation
Conformance with Indicator: Yes
No
N/A
to be restored to natural and semi-natural
conditions are chosen through a
landscape analysis that focuses on
enhancing ecological integrity and habitat
connectivity.
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.6. Measures shall be taken to maintain or improve soil structure, fertility, and biological
activity. The techniques and rate of harvesting, road and trail construction and maintenance, and
the choice of species shall not result in long-term soil degradation or adverse impacts on water
quality, quantity, or substantial deviation from stream course drainage patterns. (See Criterion 6.5.
and its indicators.
Note: The Working Group considers this Criterion sufficiently explicit and measurable. Indicators are not
required.
NOTES: Not Applicable
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 136 of 200
10.7 Measures shall be taken to prevent and minimize outbreaks of pests, diseases, fire, and
invasive plant introductions. Integrated pest management shall form an essential part of the
management plan, with primary reliance on prevention and biological control methods rather than
chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Plantation management should make every effort to move
away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers, including their use in nurseries. The use of
chemicals is also covered in Criteria 6.6 and 6.7.
Note: The Working Group considers that this criterion is sufficiently explicit and measurable, so does not
require indicators.
NOTES: Not Applicable
10.8 Appropriate to the scale and diversity of the operation, monitoring of plantations shall
include regular assessments of potential on-site and off-site ecological and social impacts (e.g.,
natural regeneration, effects on water resources and soil fertility, and impacts on local welfare
and social well-being), in addition to those elements addressed in principles 8, 6, and 4. No
species should be planted on a large scale until local trials and/or experience have shown that
they are ecologically well-adapted to the site, are not invasive, and do not have significant
negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems. Special attention will be paid to social issues
of land acquisition for plantations, especially the protection of local rights of ownership, use or
access.
Note: The Working Group considers that this criterion is sufficiently explicit and measurable, so does not
require indicators.
10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994
normally shall not qualify for certification. Certification may be allowed in circumstances where
sufficient evidence is submitted to the certification body that the manager/owner is not
responsible directly or indirectly for such conversion.
Note: The Working Group considers this Criterion sufficiently explicit and measurable. Indicators are not
required
NOTES: Not Applicable
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 137 of 200
APPENDIX IV: Chain of Custody Standard Conformance Checklist
(confidential)
Note: The following section is for the evaluation of FMO’s without processing facilities. All
operations with primary and secondary processing facilities must be evaluated using the
complete chain of custody standard and a separate report is required for each processing facility.
Definition of Forest Gate: The CNNF forest gate is the point where forest products exit the purchase
unit boundary.
Chain of Custody
Criteria
CoC 1: FMO maintains effective
control of forest products from
standing timber until ownership is
transferred at the forest gate.
Yes
No
NA
CAR
Explanatory notes/ CAR or
OBS
All products produced under a given
harvest contract originate within the
harvest/purchase unit boundaries.
All CNNF lands are included in the
scope of this evaluation.
X
(NOTE: This is a test evaluation
project. A certificate will not be
issued to the CNNF.)
CoC 2: System has procedures for
handling non-certified wood which
originate outside the scope of this
certificate. Note: If no outside
wood is utilized mark as NA
X
All CNNF lands are included in the
scope of this evaluation. The CNNF
only sells products from its lands.
Thus, no wood originates from
outside the scope of this evaluation.
(NOTE: This is a test evaluation
project. A certificate will not be
issued to the CNNF.)
CoC 3: Risk of contamination of
certified wood and Non timber
forest products by non certified
products is controlled.
CoC 4: A system exists that
ensures that certified forest
products are clearly distinguished
from non-certified products
through marks or labels at all
stages of processing to final sales
at the forest gate?
CoC 5: A system exists to include
FMO FSC certificate code and
At the forest landing, and at all
stages of harvest preceding the
landing, products originating from
other ownerships are not present,
consequently there is no risk of
commingling wood from CNNF with
wood from other properties. Nontimber forest products are not
included under the scope of the
evaluation.
X
X
X
All products within the forest gate
would be certified. There would be
no mixing with non-certified
products and, thus, no need for
distinguishing marks.
The CNNF currently does not have
a system readily available to ensure
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
CAR
10/06
Page 138 of 200
certified description of products on
sales and shipping documentation
(e.g. waybill and invoices).
forest products are clearly
distinguishable from non-certified
products. Each timber sale contract
and prospectus would need to
include a description of the wood as
FSC certified and also include
CNNF’s FSC registration number.
(NOTE: This is a test evaluation
project. A certificate will not be
issued to the CNNF.)
CoC 6: If the FMO sells mixed
products that combine certified and
non certified wood, procedures
exist that demonstrate compliance
with FSC minimum thresholds and
record keeping requirements. If no
mixed products are sold mark as
NA.
CoC 7: Volume and source data on
loads of raw material (certified logs)
is available (i.e. scaled, inventoried,
measured) in the forest, in
transport, and at intermediate
storage yards, processing and
distribution centers controlled by
FMO.
CoC 8: Record keeping system
exists that maintains certification
related documents (sales, shipping
and other applicable
documentation). Documents are
kept in a central location and/or
easily available for inspection.
X
CNNF does not sell mixed products.
X
CNNF maintains records of harvest
volumes as hardwood or softwood
pulp/chips or species and grade of
sawtimber for each harvest unit and
the harvesting contractor was
recorded for each harvest unit.
X
All records are maintained at the
CNNF Supervisor’s Offices and the
Forest Service Regional Office.
CoC 9: A system exists to ensure
that all use of the FSC/SW
trademarks, as well as public
information related to certification
is submitted to SmartWood for
review and approval.
X
CNNF has not agreed to obtain
approval from SmartWood prior to
the use of SmartWood and FSC
trademarks, but, if this were an
actual certification evaluation, it is
expected they would agree.
CAR
10/06
(NOTE: This is a test evaluation
project. A certificate will not be
issued to the CNNF.)
COC 10: FMO has procedures for
compiling annual report on sales to
SmartWood containing monthly
sales in terms of volume of each
certified products to each
customer. For small operations
copies of invoices/waybills are
X
CNNF’s computerized database
can produce volume reports by
harvest unit, product, and
purchaser.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 139 of 200
sufficient.
Contamination Risk: Using the table below describe the risk of products from non certified sources being
mixed with products from the forest area evaluated (include source or point of risk and importance) and
describe the control system in place that addresses the identified risk.
Point of Possible Contamination
There is no risk of mixing non-certified
with certified products prior to the forest
gate.
Description of Risk
NA
Risk control measure
NA
CAR #: 10/06
Non-compliance:
Minor
Major
Reference Standard #: 8.3, CoC 5, CoC 9
CNNF does not have a formal CoC. While key elements associated with control of forest
products to and at the forest gate and associated accounting of products sales are well
developed, CNNF would need to develop new CoC procedures.
Corrective Action Request: CNNF shall develop, document and apply procedures for chain-of-custody. This
system shall include:
• a system to include FMO FSC certificate code and certified description of products on sales and shipping
documentation (CoC 5)
• a system to ensure that all use of the FSC/SW trademarks, as well as related public information, are
submitted to SmartWood for review and approval (CoC 9)
Timeline for Compliance: Not applicable (test evaluation).
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 140 of 200
APPENDIX VI: List of all visited sites (confidential)
District
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Site Name
Sale
NEPA
decision
Deerskin
Lone
Duck
(1997)
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Lone
Duck
(1997)
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Elvoy Dam
Brule Creek
Pine River
Crooked
Neck Timber
Sale
North
Haystack
Timber Sale
Auditor
Type of site /
short description of site
Cold-water stream habitat modification and bank
stabilization. Removing old habitat structures and
alder brush.
Restore cold-water stream flow by removing logging
dam remnants.
Improve fish passage, reduce sedimentation, and
restore steam channel by installing aluminum box
culvert and erosion control devices.
PU 4: Completed spruce thinning, spruce high-risk,
SMZ along Pine River.
PU 3: Completed uneven-aged hardwood selection,
slash disposal along private property boundary
PU 11: Completed hardwood shelterwood first cut,
slash disposal along road, adjacent wetland.
PU 6: Completed uneven-aged hardwood selection,
slash disposal along road.
PU 1: Reserve Area containing threatened plant
species.
Multi-partner management (brushing, mowing) of
walking trails on CNNF lands.
Hunter
Walking Trail
Grado
Grado
Project between CNNF and partners to construct foot
bridge, thereby reducing riparian area damage.
Freedom
(1996)
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Chemical control of NNIS along recreational trails.
Lakewood
-Laona
Hidden
Lakes Trail
Foot Bridge
FranklinButternut
Lake Garlic
Mustard
Echo Lake
Special
Management
Area
Richardson
Timber Sale
Lakewood
-Laona
Bog Brook
Timber Sale
Freedom
(1996)
Eagle
RiverFlorence
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Old-growth hemlock-hardwoods.
PU 18: Completed uneven-aged hardwood
selection, wetland buffers, road construction, soil
impacts.
PU 11: Marked/uncut spruce salvage to release
aspen regeneration.
PU 17: Completed uneven-aged hardwood
selection.
PU 2: Completed clearcut with retention, wetland
skid trail crossing.
PU 13: Marked/uncut uneven-aged hardwood
selection, Reserve Area for cultural resources.
PU 14: Completed uneven-aged hardwood
selection, Reserve Area for cultural resources.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 141 of 200
Lakewood
-Laona
Linse Road
Project
Lakewood
-Laona
Cloud Nine
Timber Sale
Lakewood
-Laona
Lakewood
-Laona
County C
Wetland
Rehabilitation
Oak Wilt
Control
Areas
Lackawana
Timber Sale
MedfordPark Falls
Sloop Timber
Sale
HoffmanSailor
West
(2003)
Pubanz,
Taylor
MedfordPark Falls
Abbey
Salvage
Timber Sale
Pubanz,
Taylor
MedfordPark Falls
Sea Dog
Timber Sale
2004
Spruce
Decline
Project
(2005)
HoffmanSailor
West
(2003)
MedfordPark Falls
MedfordPark Falls
Wilson
Flowage
Riley Lake
Wildlife
Management
Area
South Fork
Flambeau
River
Restoration
Project
Vanderveen
Wetland
Restoration
Project
Round Lake
Cultural Sites
Lakewood
-Laona
MedfordPark Falls
MedfordPark Falls
MedfordPark Falls
2004
Spruce
Decline
Project
(2005)
Thunder
Springs
(1997)
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Kotar
Two cold-water stream crossings, closure and
reconstruction to improve fish passage and
streamflow.
PU 5: Completed spruce decline salvage and
regeneration to aspen, gated access.
PU 1: Completed spruce decline salvage with intent
to naturally regenerate hardwood, hardwood
regeneration sporadic.
Road removal from wetland and restoration of
wetland and stream to original condition.
Oak wilt identification and control: stump removal and
trenching
PU 17: Completed red oak shelterwood prep cut,
site preparation.
PU 18: Completed red oak shelterwood prep cut,
poor tree felling techniques.
PU 21: Completed even-aged hardwood thinning,
SMZ, operating restriction (date) for endangered
animal species.
PU 1: Completed red pine thinning, adjacent stand
of high-risk spruce not scheduled for harvest.
PU 10: Uncut overstory removal to release younger
spruce, marked reserve trees, adjacent wetland.
PU 11: Uncut aspen clearcut, Reserve Area for
wetland, marked reserve trees, narrow uncut buffer
along wetland
PU 6: Active spruce decline salvage, regenerating to
aspen, Reserve Areas are aesthetic buffers along
road, wetland reserved in unit by sale administrator.
Pubanz,
Taylor
PU 17: New road construction by sale purchaser.
Pubanz,
Taylor
Pubanz,
Taylor
Multi-partner dam replacement project, currently in
drawdown to kill submergent weeds.
6000-acre unit with 1800 acres maintained through
prescribed burns.
Pubanz,
Taylor
Warm-water river that is a candidate Wild, Scenic,
and Recreational River. Project to narrow and
deepen stream channel and to restore in-stream
habitat complexity.
Pubanz,
Taylor
Removal of dikes and trail fill from wetlands.
Pubanz,
Taylor
Rehabilitation of historic logging dam.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 142 of 200
Great
Divide
Dead Horse
Run ATV
Trail
Great
Divide
Clam Lake
NNIS Project
Great
Divide
Snowmobile
Trail Reroute
Great
Divide
Clam Lake
ELF Site
Great
Divide
Great
Divide
Elk Viewing
Area
Prescribed
Burn
Tree Drops
(Black Lake)
Great
Divide
Spider
Timber Sale
Two Axe
(1997)
Great
Divide
Moose
Spruce
Timber Sale
Great
Divide
Weasel
Timber Sale
2004
Spruce
Decline
Project
(2005)
Two Axe
(1997)
Washburn
Pipeline
Jack/Moquah
Haney
Moquah 6B
Croaked Oak
Timber Sale
Oak
Salvage
CE
Summit Lake
II Timber
Sale
Sunken
Moose
(2004)
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Reconstructed multi-use motorized trail.
Spotted knapweed control in barrow pit.
New trail development through red pine stand.
Facility decommissioning and deconstruction,
maintenance of elk habitat
Use of prescribed fire to control encroaching woody
vegetation, viewing area development.
Providing large woody debris along lake shore lines
to improve fish habitat.
PU 3: Completed even-aged hardwood thinning,
hiking trail through unit, perched wetlands, adjacent
to lake.
PU 1: Completed salvage, area to be planted to
black spruce and larch.
PU 4: Completed spruce salvage with intent to utilize
natural hardwood regeneration, hardwood
regeneration weak at this time.
PU 1: Completed even-aged spruce thinning, spruce
now declining with high mortality.
Moquah Barrens Wildlife Area: Moquah Units 17 and
18, and Pipeline Jack Units 1, 2 and 8. Harvesting
and burning for open lands maintenance.
Moquah Barrens Wildlife Area: Moquah Unit 7d (aka
Hayney Experimental Burn Area). A study to
investigate whether barrens habitat can be restored
from forested condition by frequent prescribed
burning without harvesting.
Moquah Barrens Wildlife Area: Moquah Unit 6b. A
red pine plantation burned two years ago and
scheduled to burn again in 2007.
PU 3: Completed salvage removing all dead trees
and those with less than 50% live crown, healthy oak
were retained.
PU 1: Marked/uncut even-aged red pine/jack pine
thinning.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 143 of 200
Cozy Corner
Timber Sale
Sunken
Moose
(2004)
North Fork
Timber Sale
Sunken
Moose
(2004)
Brinks 251
Vahalla View
Timber Sale
Sunken
Moose
(2004)
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
Pubanz,
Taylor,
Russell,
Grado,
Kotar
PU 4: Active even-aged oak thinning, completed and
uncut areas.
PU 6: Marked/uncut even-aged red pine thinning.
PU 9: Marked/uncut even-aged oak thinning,
numerous vernal pools.
Prescribed burn to develop multi-age structure in jack
pine cover type.
PU 10: Active oak shelterwood prep cut, recreational
trails
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 144 of 200
APPENDIX VII: Detailed list of stakeholders consulted (confidential)
List of FMO Staff Consulted
Name
Adams, Susanne
Organization
Wildlife Biologist
Ahlf, Veronica
Resource Assistant
Ahlf, Richard
Supervisory
Engineering
Technician
Ambright, Stephanie
Asst. Ranger,
Administration
Andersen, Mike
Computer Assistant
Anderson, Erick
Forester
Anderson, Renee
Forestry Aid
Anderson, Roger
Supervisor
Recreation
Technician
Anderson, Scott
Wildlife Biologist
Anderson, Tim
Law Enforcement
Officer
Contact information
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
Contacts
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
715-674-4481
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 145 of 200
Archie, Anne
Forest Supervisor
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Babineau, Maxine
Office Automation
Clerk
Bablick, Mike
Wildlife/Fisheries
Technician
Bacon, Randy
Civil Engineering
Technician
Baker, Michael
Forestry Technician
Barbian, Alan
Office Automation
Assistant
Barker, Phil
Lands/Recreation
Program Manager
Barott, Joyce
Admin. Support
Assistant
Bathel, Dave
Forester
Belanger, Ken
Forester
Belanger, Ken
Forester
Benzing, Scott
Forestry Technician
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
29270 CTH G
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, office
interaction, field
interaction,
stakeholder meeting,
closing meeting
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 146 of 200
Bey, Dawn
Infrastructure
Database Admin
Beyer, Patty
Acting NEPA/FOIA
Coordinator
Information
Receptionist
Block, Betty
Bloomquist, Ralph
Forestry Technician
Bluedorn, Dale
Forestry Technician
Borcovan, Mark
Law Enforcement
Officer
Borman, Nancy
Business Mgt.
Assistant
Branch, Andy
Forester Trainee
Brehm, Lisa
Cartographic
Technician
Briesacher, Deb
Computer Assistant
Bronson, Joshua
Biological Science
Technician
Browen, Allen
Forestry Technician
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
906-226-1499
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Oconto River Seed Orchard
18100 Saul’s Spring Road
White Lake, WI 54491
715-276-7400
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 147 of 200
Brownell, Dave
Surveying
Technician
Bruhy, Mark
Archaeologist
Brunner, Christine
Biological Scientist
Campbell, Dave
Civil Engineering
Technician
Carlson, Joann
Office Automation
Clerk
Carlson, Randy
Timber Sale
Administrator
Chandler, Geoff
Natural Resources/
Ecosystems Group
Leader
Chaney, Connie
District Ranger
Christianson, John
Equipment Operator
Churchill, Jim
Supervisory Forestry
Technician
Churchill, Paula
Engineer
Comstock, Jean
Office Automation
Clerk
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
mbruhy@fs.fed.us
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction, e-mail
correspondence
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, office
interaction, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey meeting,
opening meeting,
office interaction,
field interaction,
stakeholder meeting,
closing meeting,
telephone contact
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Page 148 of 200
Corey-Luce, Cristi
NEPA Writer
Crawford, Carl
District Fire
Management Officer
Crocket, Richard
Civil Engineering
Technician
Cukla, Carey
Forestry Technician
Dalka, Stephanie
Support Services
Supervisor
Dane, Linda
Business
Management
Assistant
Darnell, Jane
Resource Policy
Analyst
Dean, Daryl
Lake States Architect
Delay, Chantelle
Botanist
Dennis, Lorrie
Resource Assistant
Derickson, Deb
Office Automation
Assistant
Dilley, Mark
Assistant Ranger,
Timber
Dinsmore, Becky
Director of Forest
Lodge
Dupuis, Betty
Resource Assistant
715-479-2827
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1360
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
Page 149 of 200
Eckardt, Sara
Watershed Specialist
Ecklund, Daniel
Wildlife Biologist
Eder, Jeff
Forestry Technician
Egdorf, Rich
Forestry Technician
Elkins, M.H. Chip
Law Enforcement
Officer
Ellingson, Bob
Forestry Technician
Enders, Carol
Computer Assistant
Erickson, Randy
Land Surveyor
Ernest, Mitzi
Asst. Ranger,
Administration
Euclide, Jenny
IT Specialist (ISO)
Feit, Ginger
Lead Purchasing
Agent
Flory, Suzanne
Acting Public Affairs
Officer
Flunker, Mark
Forestry Technician
Fox, Cathy
Public Affairs
Specialist
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
118 S. 4th Avenue E
Ely, MN 55731
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
Page 150 of 200
715-362-1300
Frater, Benjamin
Ecologist
Freeman, Phil
Assistant Ranger,
Timber
Gardebrecht, Al
Equipment Operator
Geidel, Chris
Forestry Technician
Gibson, Bill
Criminal Investigator
Gifford, Juliet
Wildlife Biologist
Gilbertson, Cookie
Executive Secretary
Glonek, Jeremiah
Forestry Technician
Gordon, Thomas
Forestry Technician
Grant, Jim
Forest Fire
Management Officer
Harnois, Mike
GIS Specialist
Harrell, Dan
Support Services
Supervisor
Harrison, Al
East Zone Fire
Management Officer
Harrison, Dale
Assistant Ranger,
Administration
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
interaction, telephone
contact, e-mail
correspondence
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 151 of 200
Hartman, Linda
Admin. Support
Clerk
Heeringa, Brian
Fire Technician
Heeringa, Brian
Biological
Technician
Helmig, Lisa
Forester
Hennes, Robert
District Ranger
Herning, Scott
Forestry Technician
Herrett, Jeff
Forester
Higgins, Dale
Hydrologist
Higgins, Jeanne
Deputy Forest
Supervisor
Hillner, Dave
Civil Engineering
Technician
Hinson, Dale
Forester
Hobbs, Linda
Support Services
Supervisor
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 152 of 200
Hoecker, Steve
Center Director
Hoefferle, Ann
Plant Ecologist
Holmes, Teresa
Forestry Technician
Hong, James
Asst. Ranger,
Recreation
Hoppe, Dave
Soil Scientist
Hoppe, Don
Administrative
Officer
Hoppe, Patricia
Procurement Clerk
Hubacher, Bob
Engineering
Technician
Huettl, Don
Lead Equipment
Operator
Humphrey, Chuck
Law Enforcement
Officer
Jacobson, Chad
Forestry Technician
Janke, Steve
Ecologist
Jaskowiak, Jerry
Fire/Fuels Mgt.
Johnson, Amy
IT Specialist (ISO)
715-373-2667
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
29270 CTH G
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
715-362-1107
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
10650 Nyman Ave.
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction,
stakeholder meeting
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, field
interaction, closing
meeting
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
Page 153 of 200
Kaiser, Pat
Forestry Technician
Kangas, Steven
Engineering Equip.
Operator
Kasper, Kathy
Forestry Technician
Kelnhofer, Matthew
Forestry Tech
Kempf, Lenny
Zone Fire Mgt. Staff
Officer
Kidd, Debra
Staff Officer;
Planning, Analysis,
Public Affairs
Kilger, Richard
Automotive
Mechanic
Kilger, Toby
Heavy Equipment
Operator
Klein, Donna
Office Automation
Assistant
Knaack, Willie
Civil Engineer
Knight, Greg
Forest Geologist
Lalonde, James
Forester TMA
Lampereur, John
Assistant Ranger,
NEPA/Ecosystems
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
dpkidd@fs.fed.us
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction,
stakeholder meeting,
e-mail contact
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Page 154 of 200
Larsen, Karen
Forestry Technician
Larson, Frank
Forestry Technician
Lepkowicz, William
Motor Vehicle
Operator
Lesch, Chris
Forestry Technician
Lester, John
Forestry Technician
Liermann, Sherryl
Forestry Technician
Lindberg, Tammy
IT Specialist (ISO)
Long, Sheila
Timber Financial
Assistant
Lopez, Veronica
GIS Specialist
Lucas, Mary
Fire NEPA Specialist
Maday, Theresa
Assistant Ranger,
Recreation/Lands
Marburger, Joan
Administrative
Support Assistant
Marquart, Candy
Martin, Eric
Procurement
Technician
Forestry Technician
Matthiae, Tom
Wildlife Biologist
715-276-6333
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
715-362-1187
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, , field
Page 155 of 200
Mayer, Greg
Surveying
Technician
Maziasz, Jennifer
Biological Scientist,
NEPA Coordinator
Meier, Anita
Purchasing Agent
Meier, Dawn
Recreation Planner
Miller, Evan
Forester
Miller, Jim
Forestry Technician
Miller, Mike K.
Civil Engineering
Technician
Mineau, Jim
Hydrologist
Mineau, Krisan
Cartographer
Moe, Kathy
Biological
Technician
Moffitt, Andy
Forestry Technician
Moris, Tom
Wildlife Biologist
Navratil, Paula
Admin. Support
Assistant
Nelson, Susan
Outdoor Recreation
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
29270 CTH G
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
Page 156 of 200
Planner
Newman, Russ
Timber Sales
Obenhoffer, Vicky
Timber Financial
Assistant
Osborne, Craig
Forestry Technician
Ostrum, Paul
Forestry Technician
Ouettette, Sandy
Administrative
Support Clerk
Parker, Linda R.
Biological Scientist
Pastori, Joe
Forestry Technician
Pastori-Merrill, Ruth
Business Mgt.
Assistant
Paterson, Jamie
Forestry Technician
Peczynski, Mike
Assistant Ranger,
Wildlife
Pederson, Ryan
Sale Administrator
Center
29270 CTH G
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction,
telephone
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, filed
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Page 157 of 200
Pete, Don
Forestry Technician
Pete, Lloyd
Forestry Technician
Peters, Rick
Forestry Technician
Peterson, Vic
Forestry Technician
Petruzalek, Jerry
Cartographer
Pohl, Randy
Engineering
Equipment Leader
Poquette, Dave
Assistant Ranger,
Timber
Posner, Scott
Wildlife Biologist
Potaracke, Kim
Archaeological
Technician
Proctor, Deb
Integrated Resource
Analyst
Quade, Virgil
Forestry Technician
Queen, John
Forestry Tech
Firefighting
Quinn, Brian
Acting Forest Planner
715-373-2667
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, filed
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 158 of 200
Raade, Robert
Silviculturalist
Radaj, Steve
Assistant Fire
Management Officer,
Dispatch Manager
Fisheries Biologist
Reinecke, Sue
Reppert, Dwayne
Richards, Darrell
Supervisor
Engineering
Technician
Assistant Ranger,
Recreation
Richards, Jim
Fleet Equipment
Specialist
Roder, Bill
Forestry Technician
Rolo, Daniel
Tractor Operator
Ruether, Bev
Forestry Technician
(Recreation)
Sabin, Brian
Dispatch/Fire
Prevention
Sabin, Teri
Supervisory Contract
Specialist
Sandoval, Larry
District Ranger
Sarow, Jim
Forestry Technician
Saunders, Jay
District Fire Mgt.
Officer
Sauter, Timothy
District Fire Equip.
Operator
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
8831 Hatchery Rd.
Woodruff, WI 54568
715-358-1353
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Oconto River Seed Orchard
18100 Saul’s Spring Road
White Lake, WI 54491
715-276-7400
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
8831 Hatchery Rd.
Woodruff, WI 54568
715-358-1353
3654 Nursery Road
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1177
tasabin@fsa.fed.us
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, filed
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 159 of 200
Scheuerman, Mary
Legal Instruments
Examiner
Schlice, Stephen
Civil Engineering
Technician
Schmidt, John
GIS Analyst
Schoenebeck, Kim
Supervisory Forestry
Technician
Schreiber, April
Budget Analyst
Schumacher, Paul
Timber Sale
Administrator
Schutt, Nicole
Biological
Technician
Schwartz, Jeff
Forestry Technician
Shaffer, Bonnie
Budget Coordinator
Simonis, Mary
IT Specialist (ISO)
Skjerven, Harrv
District Ranger
Smith, Charley
Heavy Equipment
Operator
Smith, Tina M.
Resource Specialist
(Timber)
Smits, Randy
Civil Engineering
Technician
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, filed
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 160 of 200
Smugala, Kristine
Property Technician
Sommer, Ted
Surveying
Technician
Spickerman, Steve
Zone Plant Ecologist
Sprister, Steve
Civil Engineering
Technician
St. Pierre, Matt
Ecologist Sci Tech
Stalker, Fresia
Admin Support Clerk
Stanfield-Smith, Joan
Lands/Forester
Statezny, Jamie
Civil Engineering
Technician
Stein, Wendy
Computer
Programmer
Strauss, Dick
Timber Management
Administrator
Sullivan, Bill
Forest Engineer
Swanson, Phyllis
Office Automation
Clerk
Sweeney, Carrie
Seed Orchard
Manager
Sweeney, Paul
Integrated Resource
Analyst
Tallier, Carol
Resource Assistant
(Timber)
715-479-2827
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Oconto River Seed Orchard
18100 Saul’s Spring Road
White Lake, WI 54491
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 161 of 200
Theisen, Mark
Silviculturist
Thompson, James
Forestry Technician
Thompson, Kim
MV
Operator/Forestry
Tech
Thompson, Tamie
Contract Specialist
Thorp, Karen
Manpower
Development
Specialist
Forestry Technician
Treml, Arnold
Tucek, Lora
Information
Receptionist
Tully, Brett
Engineering
Van Cleve, Jerry
Forester
Van Cleve, Monica
Administrative
Assistant
Vanzo, Karen
Vassar, Don
Safety and
Occupational Health
Officer
Forestry Technician
Vassar, Larry
Forestry Technician
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
850 N. 8th., Hwy 13
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-4875
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
231-723-2211, ext. 134
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
PO Box 896
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4821
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
29270 CTH G
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, office
interaction, field
interaction,
stakeholder meeting,
closing meeting
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
Page 162 of 200
Veen, Debra
GIS Specialist
Volk, Michelle
Forestry Technician
Vuchetich, Dan
Forestry Technician
Vuchetich, Kim
Office Automation
Assistant
Vuchetich, Paul
Information
Receptionist
Vuchetich, Virginia
Purchasing Agent
Walker, Curt
Forestry Technician
Walton, Kyra
NEPA Writer
Waupachick, Anthony
Forester
Weinberger, Ken
Heavy Equipment
Operator
Wesner, William
Tractor Operator
Wetenkamp, Heather
Forestry Technician
Wiese, Pamela
Agreements
Specialist
Civil Engineering
Technician
Wilber, Andy
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
4978 Hwy. 8 W
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-4481
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Oconto River Seed Orchard
18100 Saul’s Spring Road
White Lake, WI 54491
715-276-7400
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
1247 E. Wall St.
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-2827
715-362-1168
715-362-1349
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 163 of 200
Willey, Chuck
Forestry Technician
Willey, Debrah A.
Civil Engineering
Technician
Wilson, John
Assistant Ranger,
Silviculture
Winstead, Richard
Forest Data Manager
Wirsing, Jon
Forestry Technician
Wirsing, Jon
Forestry Technician
Wolfe, Jerry
Forestry Technician
Worth, Chris
District Ranger
Yokishane, Sarah
Forestry Technician
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
68 S. Stevens St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1300
Eagle River-Florence Ranger
District
4793 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-4464
1170 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Medford-Park Falls Ranger
District
1170 4th Ave. S.
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2461
Great Divide Ranger District
N22223 Hwy. 13
Glidden, WI 54527
715-264-2511
Lakewood-Laona Ranger District
15085 State Rd. 32
Lakewood, WI 54138
715-276-6333
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Washburn Ranger District
113 E. Bayfield St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-2667
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey, office
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, field
interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
List of other Stakeholders Consulted
Name
Aderman, D. J.
Aguilar, Patricia
Organization
Johnson Timber
Corporation
Northwoods Forestry,
Inc.
Alverson, Bill
None given.
Ambrosius, Jim
Ambrosius Forest
Products
None given.
Amerall, Jac
Contact information
9676 N. Kruger Road
Hayward, WI 54843-7189
PO Box 250
Antigo, WI 54409
715-986-2039
430 Lincoln Drive Madison,
WI 53706
5103 Hwy 8 and 32
Laona, WI 54541
1919 W Rochelle Street
Milwaukee, WI 53209
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Contacts
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 164 of 200
Anderson, Ken
None given.
Anger, Hans
None given.
Antigo Public Library, Elcho
Branch
Arnold, Mary
Antigo Public Library,
Elcho Branch
None given.
Arrowhead Star Co.
Arrowhead Star Co.
Ashland Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Ashland Construction Co.
Ashland Construction
Co.
Attig, John
Atwood, Edwin
Aulik, Jerry
Wisconsin Geological
& Natural History
Survey
None given.
None given.
B & B Logging
B & B Logging
Bacco Construction Co.
Bacco Construction Co.
Bad River Public Library
Bajczyk, Jeffrey
Bad River Public
Library
None given.
Barden, Al
SFI Affiliation
Bartels, Adriane
None given.
Bartels, Donald
None given.
Bartelt, Otto
None given.
Bartelt, Pete
Bartz, David
None given.
None given
Baumann, Rebecca 1 Point
Place,
Wis. Land & Water
Conservation
Association
Box 294
Eagle River, WI 54521
95 S State Route 83
Grayslake, IL 60030-1617
P.O. Box 800
Elcho, WI 54428
295 Cranbrook Court
Nekoosa, WI 54457
14646 Onyx Trail
Plainview, AR 72857
501-440-2479
304 W. Michigan Street
P.O. Box 155
Butternut, WI 54514
715-769-3777
choffman05@centurytel.net
1721 3rd Street West
PO Box 231
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-4884
3817 Mineral Point Rd.
Madison, WI 53705
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
ekatwood@verizon.net
N5476 Hwy. 45
Deerbrook, WI 54424
48356 State Highway 13
Ashland, WI 54806
PO Box 458
Iron Mountain, MI 49801
906-774-2616
P.O. Box 39
Odanah, WI 54861
428 Clover Ct.
Dousman, WI 53118
4427 Chain O’Lakes Road
Eagle River, WI 54521
PO Box 5
Lakewood, WI 54138
17067 Clubhouse Lane
Lakewood, WI 54138
N2688 North Korth Lane Lot
573
Clintonville, WI 54929
pcforest@co.price.wi.us
326 N. Fullerton Ave.
Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235
Suite 101
Madison, WI 53719-2809
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 165 of 200
Bayfield County Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Behrmann, Jacqueline
Town of Long Lake
Bemidji Public Library
Bemidji Public Library
Bennett, Wayne
None given.
Bergin, Ron
CAMBA
Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill,
Blomberg, Randy
Biewer Wisconsin
Sawmill,
Natural Resource
Director, Lac Courte
Oreilles Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
Blomberg Logging Inc.
Boll, Jim
None given.
Bondioli, Joe
Contractor
Boren, Steve
None given.
Boren, Stuart
Boucher, Carla
Wisconsin DNR
None given.
Bozek, Nancy
Wis. Woodland Owners
Association
None given.
Bisonette, Brian
Brandes, Charles
Bresette, Lisa
THPO, Red Cliff Band
of Lake Superior
Chippewa
Breske, Roger
None given.
Brevak, Bob
None given.
Brown, Dennis
Brown Trucking
Brown, Jeff
None given.
Brown, Susanne
Sylvania Forest
Consultants
Bschor, Dennis
USDA Forest Service
P.O. Box 445
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-6114
forestry@bayfieldcounty.org
Box 108
Long Lake, WI 54542
509 America Avenue
Bemidji, MN 56601
15711 E Chain Lake Drive
Lakewood, WI 54138
PO Box 280
Cable, WI 54821
400 Red Pine Court
Prentice, WI 54556
13394 W. Trepania Rd.,
Bldg 1
Hayward, WI 54843-2186
715-634-8934
W3907 State Hwy 86
Ogema, WI 54459
W869 Van Alstine Road
White Lake, WI 54491
W7254 Altman Rd
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-3452
HC 2 Box 1031
Florence, WI 54121
stuart.boren@dnr.state.wi.us
115 Clover Dr
Chesapeake, VA 23320-5405
P.O. Box 285
Stevens Point, WI 54481
6321 38th Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53142
88385 Pike Road,
Highway 13
Bayfield, WI 54814
715-779-3648
Room 310 South
PO Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
Route 4 Box 302
Ashland, WI 54806
7920 Trout Creek Road
Rhinelander, WI 54501
18330 130 Ave.
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
E8024 Sanders Road
Bessemer, MI 49911-970
906-663-6854
USDA Forest Service
dbschor@fs.fed.us
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Page 166 of 200
Bube, Jon
None given.
Burmeister, Aaron
Burmeister Logging
Burnett Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Cable Natural History
Museum
Caputo, Joseph
Carroll, Storm
Cable Natural History
Museum
Big Game Study
Committee
Columbia Forest
Products
None given.
Central Timber, Inc.
Central Timber, Inc.
Cerkas, John
None given.
Chippewa Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Clark Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Coffey, Michael B.
None given.
Connor, Dick
None given.
Connor, Gordon
None given.
Connor, Jr., Richard
None given.
Connor, Richard
None given
Coutu, Pete
Plum Creek Timber
Cox, Douglas
Crandon Public Library
Environmental
Specialist, Menominee
Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin
Crandon Public Library
Cravens, Jay
None given.
Carlson, Larry
W3661 Trout Ave.
Rib Lake, WI 54470
N6760 French Road
Seymour, WI 54165
7425 County Road K
Siren, WI 54872
715-349-2157
mailto:jnichols@sirentel.net
PO Box 616
Cable, WI 54821
6320 Sighting Rd.
McFarland, WI 53558
606 Wilderness Drive
Mellen, WI 54546
5216 Forest Rd.
Laona, WI 54541
PO Box 2221
Eagle River, WI 54521
PO Box 344
Laona, WI 54541
711 North Bridge Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
715-726-7881
drichards@co.chippewa.
wi.us
517 Court Street
Neillsville, WI 54456
715-743-5140
mark.heil@co.clark.wi.us
24068 Beartooth Lane
Mass City, MI 49948
906-883-3661
PO Box 95
Laona, WI 54541
Box 35
Laona, WI 54541
connormgt@aol.com
PO Box 139
Long Lake, WI 54542
PO Box 130
Goodman, WI 54125
1411 North 4th Street,
Ste. 104
Tomahawk, WI 54487-2154
PO Box 910
Keshena, WI 54135
715-799-4937
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
110 W. Polk Street
Crandon, WI 54520
2732 N. Shepard Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53211
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 167 of 200
Crawford, Lee
Culhane, Ed
International Paper
Company
None given.
Cutting Edge Forestry, Inc.
Cutting Edge Forestry,
Inc.
Dahlie, Gordon
None given.
Dallman, Matt
The Nature
Conservancy
Daily Press
Dally, Chad
Danielsen, Karen
Darton, Glen
Dashner, Ralph
Forest
Ecologist/Botanist,
Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife
Commission
None given.
Dassow, Bruce
Environmental
Specialist, Bad River
Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
None given.
Dassow, Harold, Jr.
None given.
Davis, Dr. Margaret B
Ecology Evolution and
Behavior, U of Minn.
None given.
Nicolet Hardwoods
Decker, Jim
Degan, Rick
DeLano, Bud
International Paper
Company
DeLong, Paul
None given
Deml, Mark
None given.
Denhardt, Kris
Dercks, Dan
Northwest Hardwoods,
Inc.
None given.
Dodge, Mark
None given.
Donnay, Jacob S.
Observer-Pinchot
Institute for
Conservation
P.O. Box 274
Norway, MI 49870
PO Box 59
Appleton, WI 54912
PO Box 300
Talent, OR 97540
541-535-4878
445 South Lake Avenue
Phillips, WI 54555
707 Main Street West
Ashland, WI 54806
Ashland, WI
Chad.dally@mx3.com
PO Box 9, Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-6619, ext. 125
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
W336 N6511 Lakeview
Drive
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
PO Box 39,
100 Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-7123
N5116 Wellington Lake
Drive
Medford, WI 54451
W5256 Dassow Ave.
Medford, WI 54451
1987 Upper Buford Circle
St. Paul, MN 55108
jdecker@wccbi.org
Box 305
Laona, WI 54541
P.O. Box 274
Norway, MI 49870
bud.delano@ipaper.com
101 S. Webster St., PO Box
7921
Madison, WI 53701
N3525 River Dr.
Medford, WI 54451
461 South Linden Street
Dorchester, WI 54425
712 Sunrise Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
717 Ridge Road
Stevens Point, WI 54481
jdonnay@pinchot.org
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice,
stakeholder meeting
Public notice, mail
survey, telephone
interview
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, opening
meeting, closing
meeting
Page 168 of 200
Douglas Co. Forestry
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Duffek Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Duffek Sand & Gravel,
Inc.
Dunn, J.D.
Dunn Forestry Services
Dusek, Frank
E. Larson Co.
Price Co. Snowmobile
Assn.
E. Larson Co.
Eau Claire Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Eckstein, Ron
None given.
Eisele, Tim
None given.
Ekholm, Pam
Archive Assistant,
Wisconsin Historical
Society
Elverson, Alan D
None given.
Emery, Elmer Jay
Epstein, Eric
St. Croix Band of
Chippewa
None given.
Erdman, Thomas
None given.
Erdmann, Doug
None given.
Erickson, Dean
None given.
Erlandson, Dale
None given.
Esser, James
None given.
Executive Director
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Express Forestry, Inc.
Express Forestry, Inc.
P.O. Box 211
Solon Springs, WI 54873
715-378-2219
dougctyforestrec@centurytel.
net
908 Hickory St.
PO Box 190
Antigo, WI 54409
715-623-7616
119 Memory Lane
Crystal Falls, MI 49920
906-875-4605
815 Pine Crest Ave.
Phillips, WI 54555
W14359 Lloyd Creek Rd.
Gleason, WI 54435
715-627-7050
227 First Street West
Altoona, WI 54720
715-839-4783
John.Staszcuk@co.eauclaire.wi.us
107 Sutliff Ave.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
129 South Segoe Road
Madison, WI 53705
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
2122 Strong Road
Phelps, WI 54554
PO Box 287
Hertel, WI 54845
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
2420 Nicolet Dr.
Green Bay, WI 54301
2418 Woodview Lane
Marinette, WI 54143
HC 2 Box 234
Florence, WI 54121
PO Box 2
Antigo, WI 54409
3012 Thinnes Street Cross
Plains, WI 53528
518 West Somo Avenue
Tomahawk, WI 54487
715-453-6741
wcfa@mac.com
1231 Hwy 254 West
Leslie, AR 72645
501-745-8484
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Office interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 169 of 200
Falck, Dennis
None given.
Faust, Randy
None given.
Fechner, Jeff
Webster Hardwoods
Ferdinand, Roman
Finnell, Joanne
Hydrogeologist,
Sokoagon Chippewa
Community, Mole Lake
Chippewa Tribe
None given.
Florence Co. Forestry and
Parks Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Forbes, Anne
None given
Forest Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Forest Lodge Library
Forest Lodge Library
Francisco, Gene
Timber Producers
Association
Frank, Nancy
Franks, Inc.
Ice Age Trail Regional
Coordinator
Ted Frank Const &
Trucking
Franks, Inc.
Frederickson, Ed
None given.
Fries, Mark
Stora Enso North
America
Friske, Donald
None given.
Friske, Representative Donald
Wisconsin State
Representative
None given.
Frank, Ted
Funk, Shari
Futurewood Corporation
Futurewood
Corporation
8832 North Port Washington
Street
Milwaukee, WI 53217-1628
15684 Davis Rd
Mountain, WI 54149
Box 297
Bangor, WI 54614-0297
3051 Sand Lake Road
Crandon, WI 54520
715-478-7611
Public notice, mail
survey
10004 State Highway 22 East
Gillett, WI 54124
Natural Resources Bldg.
4818 Forestry Drive
Florence, WI 54121
715-528-3207 x105
psmith@co.florence.wi.us
516 Wingra St.
Madison, WI 53714
200 E. Madison
Crandon, WI 54520
715-478-3475
dzforestco@ez-net.com
P.O. Box 176
Cable, WI 54821
3243 Golf Course Road
Rhinelander, WI
54501-8176
E 3602 1450th Ave.
Ridgeland, WI 54763
9718 Airport Road
Crandon, WI 54520
N2512 County Y
Peshtigo, WI 54157
PO Box 1603 (mailing) or
1509 Sage Rd. (physical)
Medford, OR 97501
530-949-4734
P.O. Box 8050
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
54495-8050
Room 312 North
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
PO Box 340
Crandon, WI 54520
9676 N Kruger Rd
Hayward, WI 54843
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 170 of 200
Fyock, Joel D.
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Galinski, Terri
Plum Creek Timber
Gaskill, Sharon Clark
None given.
Gayhart, Elmer
None given.
Gebken, Duwayne
None given.
Gehrke, Don
None given.
Genich, Kim
None given.
Geske, Milton
None given.
Giese, Roger
Gilbert, John
Midwest Forest
Products
Biologist, Great Lakes
Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission
Gilbert, Tom
National Park Service
Gilson-Pierce, Gail
Trees for Tomorrow
Gipp, Frank and Joan
None given.
Glime, Michael
None given.
Glynn, Brian
None given.
Gorski, Justin
None given.
Govett, Robert
University of
Wisconsin, Stevens
Point
None given.
Graunke, Gerald
Greiff, Elizabeth
Grewe, Dave
Grieser, Robert
Grignon, David
Program Director, St.
Croix Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Bearhunters
Association
None given.
THPO, Menominee
Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin
PO Box 602
Cloudcroft, NM 88317
505-687-4458
1411 North 4th Street,
Ste. 104
Tomahawk, WI 54487-2154
10405 Bell Rd.
Black Earth, WI 53515
N2275 Cardinal Road
Medford, WI 54451
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
20800 George Hunt Circle
Waukesha, WI 53186
2020 University Avenue #31
Madison, WI 53705
105 North Wildwood Dr
Crandon, WI 54520
General Delivery
Lakewood, WI 54138
PO Box 9, Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-6619, ext. 121
jgilbert@glifwc.org
700 Ray O Vac Dr.
Madison, WI 53711
P.O. Box 609
Eagle River, WI 54521-0609
403 Buchanan Road
Kaukauna, WI 54130
HC 1 Box 182
Florence, WI 54121
4141 Sleeping Dragon Road
West Bend, WI 53095
Box 507
Pewaukee, WI 53072
CNR – Wood Utilization Lab
Stevens Point, WI 54481
Public notice, mail
survey
17 South Watertown Street
Waupun, WI 53963
246663 Angeline Ave.
Webster, WI 54893-9246
715-349-2195
5705 County Road F
Abbotsford, WI 54405
200 N Grand Avenue
Rothschild, WI 54474
PO Box 910
Keshena, WI 54135
715-799-5258
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail contact,
telephone interviews
(2)
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, telephone
inquiry
Page 171 of 200
Grinyer, Michael R.
Grinyer Forestry
Consulting
Grunwald, John
None given.
Gumz, Brad
None given.
Gunderson, Ernest
None given.
Gunnulson, David
None given.
Gurnoe, Michelle
Gustafson, Earl
Fisheries Office
Manager, Red Cliff
Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa
None given.
Haasl, Charlie
None given.
Hakes, David
Halada, Stewart
David Hakes Logging,
LLC
None given.
Halpin, Gary
Meister Log & Lumber
Hamann, Wayne
Wis. Professional
Loggers Association
None given.
Hamilton, Jack A.
Haney, Alan
Hannigan, Bill
University of
Wisconsin, Steven’s
Point, College of
Natural Resources
None given.
Hanninen, Jr., Charles
None given..
Hanson, Drew
Hanson, Martin
Ice Age Park and Trail
Foundation
None given.
Hanson, Paul
Plum Creek Timber
Harbin, Chris
None given.
Harden, Randy
Wisconsin ATV
Assn.
None given.
Hargrove, Ross C.
1636B River Road
St. Croix Falls, WI 54024
715-483-1328
812-9-88 2832 ,
johngrunwald@aol.com
W9404 County Road D
Westboro, WI 54490
3324 33rd Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
1813 Hillside Road
Cambridge, WI 53523
88385 Pike Road, Hwy 13
Bayfield, WI 54814
715-779-3750
Public notice, mail
survey
Box 718
Neenah, WI 54957
7730 Meadowlark Lane
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
1400 S. 3rd Street
Cornell, WI 54732
871 State Highway 139
Tipler, WI 54542
P.O. Box 308
Reedsburg, WI 53959
W4328 County Hwy M
Medford, WI 54451
100 Wisconsin River Drive
Port Edwards, WI 54469
2100 Main St.
Stevens Point, WI 54481
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
PO Box 117
Ishpeming, MI 49849
Route 1 Box 306
Highbridge, WI 54846
2453 Atwood Ave., Ste 206
Madison, WI 53704
Box 707
Mellen, WI 54546
15954 Rivers Edge Drive,
Ste. 101
Hayward, WI 54843
1057 Reason Ave
Louisville, KY 40217
4420 N. 50th St.
Sheboygan, WI 53083
80 South Eighth Street
1000 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 172 of 200
Harms, Jan
Harratt, Dana
University of
Wisconsin, Steven’s
Point
Mosinee Paper
Harris, Trent
None given.
Havel, Janes
None given.
Haveri, Rose
Hedstrom Lumber Company
Inc
Hegge, Brian
Tourist Information
Assistant, Wisconsin
Historical Society
Hayward Carnegie
Library
Hedstrom Lumber
Company, Inc.
Trout Unlimited
Heidemann, Pete
None given.
Henricks, Scott
Trout Unlimited
Herzberg, Jerry
None given.
Hiemenz, Richard
Hilberg Logging
USDA Forest Service
Hilberg Logging
Hilgers, Pete
Kretz Lumber Co.
Hokans, Rick
Observer-USDA Forest
Service
Homeier, Brad
NewPage Corporation
Hoppe, Dan and Deb
None given.
Hoppe, Jim
Packaging Corporation
of America
Natl. Assoc. of
Conservation Districts
Hayward Carnegie Library
Horvath, William
Hoselton, Lynn
None given.
Howe, Dr. Robert
None given.
Huebner, George
None given.
Huempfner, Mark
Wild Rivers
378 CNR
Stevens Point, WI 54481
Public notice, mail
survey
100 Main Street
Mosinee, WI 54455
721 West Maple Street
Medford, WI 54451
N8002 Willow Drive
Algoma, WI 54201
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
Ashland, WI 54608
P.O. Box 917
Hayward, WI 54843
1504 Gunflint Trail
Grand Marais, MN 55604
2898 Oak Ridge Circle
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-3244
PO Box 228
Ewen, MI 49925
906-988-2233
212 Mary St.
Antigo, WI 54409
715-623-3867
10240 Young Street
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
rhiemenz@fs.fed.us
824 Erie Avenue
Crystal Falls, MI 49920
Box 160
Antigo, WI 54409
rhoskins@fs.fed.us
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Office interaction
P.O. Box 1008
Escanaba, MI 49829-6008
305 E. Ducharm St.
Kaukauna, WI 54130
N9090 County Road E
Tomahawk, WI 54487
350 McDill Avenue
Stevens Point, WI
54481-2895
437 Gillett St
Waukegan, IL 60085
MAC 212 UW Green Bay
Green Bay, WI 54311
Route 1 Box 846
Crandon, WI 54520
wildrivers@centurytel.net
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, opening
meeting, stakeholder
meeting, closing
meeting
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Page 173 of 200
Huizdak, David
USDA NRCS
Hulbert, William
None given.
Hylla, Nicholas J.
Wis. Forest Resources
Education Alliance
Iola Village Library
Iola Village Library
Iron Co. Forest Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Isham, Mic
Vice Chair - Voigt
Intertribal Task Force,
Chair - Board of
Comm. for GLIFWC,
Lac Courte Oreilles
Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Jackson Co. Forest
Administrator
Jackson-Golly, Kelly
Jacobson, Kent
THPO, Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
SFI/BMP Manager
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
None given.
Janecek, Tony
None given.
Jarvinen, Brian
H&J Forest Services
Joanis, Bruce
None given.
Jockisch, Robert
RJ Distributing, Inc.
Johnson Timber Corp.
Johnson Timber Corp.
Johnson, Bill
Johnson Timber
Corporation
SAPPI Fine PaperWood Procurement
Jacobs, Tom
Jordan, Carl
Room 103
Spooner, WI 54801
715-635-3505, ext. 117
118 Avery Avenue
Park Falls, WI 54552
715-762-2204
715-762-1411
2040 Center Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481
I80 South Main Street
Iola, WI 54945
607 Third Ave. N. Suite #2
Hurley, WI 54534
715-561-2697
brown@up.lib.mi.us
13394 W. Trepania Rd.,
Bldg 1
Hayward, WI 54843-218
715-634-8934
Public notice, mail
survey
W7970 Airport Road
Black River Falls, WI 54615
715-284-8475
jim.zahasky@centurytel.net
PO Box 67,
418 Little Pines Road
Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538
715-588-2139
N3312 River Bend Drive
Peshtigo, WI 54157
Public notice, mail
survey
PO Box 504
Cloquet, MN 55720-1566
206 Wallrich Rd.
Cecil, WI 54111
PO Box 255
Manistee, MI 49660
231-590-9198
209 13th Avenue. East
Ashland, WI 54806
3605 N Parish Ave
Peoria, IL 61604
9676 Kruger Rd.
Hayward, WI 54843
9676 N. Kruger Road
Hayward, WI 54843-7189
98 North Avenue, Suite 30
Skowhegan, ME 04976
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, telephone
interview
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 174 of 200
Juneau Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
K.L.P. Logging
K.L.P. Logging
Kafka, Pat
None given.
Kagan, Neil
Great Lakes Natural
Resource Center
Mondeaux Dam
Lodge Concessions
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
None given.
Kalmon, Steve
Kariainen, Steve
Kelley, Ed
Kelly, Rick
Manager, National Park
Service
Kinney, Phillip
None given.
Kirchmeyer, Richard
None given.
Kizewski, Jim
None given.
Klessig Family Partnership
Koepp, Paul
Klessig Family
Partnership
None given.
Kohl, Honorable Herb
U.S. Senator
Konieczny, Dave
Taylor Made ATV’ers
Korbus, Edmund
None given.
Korzeniewski, Ronald
None given.
Kovach, Joseph
None given.
Kramer, Kevin
KLP Logging
Krause, Eugene
Town of Spider Lake
Kreiling, Pete
Georgia-Pacific
Corporation
None given.
Krenz, Willie
Kretz, Dan
Kretz Lumber
Company
650 Prairie
Mauston, WI 53948-1345
608-847-9390
pfadm@co.juneau.wi.us
5791 Hwy. 8
Laona, WI 54541
1940 River Vista Drive
Mosinee, WI 54455
506 East Liberty
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
1117 South 8th St.
Medford, WI 54451
16571 W. US Hwy 63
Hayward, WI 54843
PO Box 233
Florence, WI 54121
Northern Great Lakes Visitor
Center
Ashland, WI 54806
715-685-9983
308 Elm Street
Menasha, WI 54952-3406
N4824 Lound Rd.
Prentice, WI 54556
8941 Bainbridge Trail
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
Box 342
Eagle River, WI 54521
HC 1 Box 23a
Florence, WI 54121
330 Senate Hart Office B
Washington, DC 20510
328 South 3rd
Medford, WI 54451
RR 1
Wabeno, WI 54566
9460 Schroeder Road
Krakow, WI 54137-9707
715 East 11th Street
Ashland, WI 54806
5791 Hwy 8
Laona, WI 54541
715-674-2246
RR 7 Box 7579
Hayward, WI 54843
P.O. Box 138
Phillips, WI 54555
110 Joan Street
Medford, WI 54451
P.O. Box 160
Antigo, WI 54409
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Office interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 175 of 200
Krueger & Steinfest, Inc.
Krueger & Steinfest,
Inc.
Krueger, Kurt
Krznasich, Larry
Vilas County News
Review
None given.
Kudick, Rob
Wausau Paper
Kuhman, Gary
None given.
Kurilla, Donna
Executive Director,
Friends of the Center
Labine, Wayne
Voigt Task Force Rep,
Sokoagon Chippewa
Community, Mole Lake
Chippewa Tribe
None given.
Lafernier, Leo
Lamy, Jon
Lange, Dale
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
Trout Unlimited
Lange, William
None given.
Langlade Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Lee, David
Lionite Hardboard
Leffler, Richard
Levantez, Nancy
Florence Cty Hwy.
Dept.
THPO, Bad River Band
of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
None given.
Lochner, Anne Marie
Thilmany LLC
Lochner, Brian
Loden, Connie
Georgia-Pacific
Corporation
None given.
Longtin, Glen
None given.
Louisiana Pacific
Corporation
Louisiana Pacific
Corporation
Leoso, Edith
PO Box 159
Antigo, WI 54409
715-627-7020
Box 1929
Eagle River, WI 54521
N15620 Sugarbush Road
Park Falls, WI 54552
100 Main Street
Mosinee, WI 54455-1497
N5750 Lound Road
Prentice, WI 54556
Northern Great Lakes visitor
Center
Ashland, WI 54608
3051 Sand Lake Road
Crandon, WI 54520
715 478-7530
Public notice, mail
survey
PO Box 529
Bayfield, WI 54814
P.O. Box 100
Sagola, MI 49881
N2095 County BB
Marinette, WI 54143
715-582-1135
Route 2 Box 1228
Argonne, WI 54511
1633 Neva Road
Antigo, WI 54409
715-627-6300
sjackson@co.langlade.wi.us
PO Box 138
Phillips, WI 54555
HC 3 Box 1
Florence, WI 54121
PO Box 39
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-7123 x1662
3955 Velvet Lake Road
Rhinelander, WI 54501
P.O. Box 600
Kaukauna, WI 54130
1220 West Railroad Street
Duluth, MN 55802
1120 Lincoln Street
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
29507 Longtin Road
Ewen, MI 49925
906-575-3916
PO Box 100
Sagola, MI 49881
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Office interaction
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 176 of 200
Lovlien, Thomas G.
Marathon Co. Forest
Administrator
Lowe, Jo Deen B.
Lukas, Andy
Deputy Attorney
General, Forest County
Potawatomi
Community
None given.
Lundberg, Bill
Marion Plywood
MacCleery, Doug
Observer-USDA Forest
Service
Mahoney, Mike
None given.
Majewski, David
None given.
Major, Nancy
Superior Forestry
Services
Marble, Jenie
None given.
Marinette Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Markart, Ken
None given.
Marquardt, Amy
Forest Industry Safety
& Training Alliance
THPO, Lac Vieux
Desert Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians,
Ketegitigaaning Ojibwe
Nation Cultural/
Historic Preservation &
Museum
None given.
Martin, Giiwegiizhigookway
Mastelski, Ron
Matthews, Colette
Mayward, Krueger
Wis. County Forest
Association
None given.
McCoy, Todd
None given.
McCaslin Logging
McCaslin Logging
Forestry Department
212 River Drive, Suite 2
Wausau, WI 54403-5476
715-261-1584
tglovlien@mail.co.marathon.
wi.us
P.O. Box 340
Crandon, WI 54520
715-478-7258
PO Box 197
Laona, WI 54541
P.O. Box 497
Marion, WI 54950
dmaccleery@fs.fed.us
814 Carrington Avenue
South Milwaukee, WI 53172
HC 1, Box 82
Florence, WI 54121
4572 Evergreen Drive
Land O’ Lakes, WI 5454
715-547-3157
HC 1 Box 398 B
Fence, WI 54120
1926 Hall Ave.
Marinette, WI 54143
715-732-7525
jneilio@marinettecounty.com
107 Sutliff Ave
Rhinelander, WI 54501
3243 Golf Course Road
Rhinelander, WI 54501
E23857 Poplar Circle
Watersmeet, WI 49969
906-358-4577
W12000 Gruchow Lane
Waterloo, WI 53594
W7300 Ridge Road
Tomahawk, WI 54487
W5132 Joe Snow Road
Merrill, WI 54452
1329 Cherry Street
Green Bay, WI 54301
17152 Rudy Road
Townsend, WI 54175
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, opening
meeting, stakeholder
meeting, closing
meeting
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 177 of 200
McConnell, Brett
McConnell, Robert
McDougal, Scott
McElroy, Spencer
Environmental
Specialist, Lac Courte
Oreilles Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
WATVA
Tribal Forester, Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
None given
McGinnis, Mary Jo
Cedar Ridge Forestry
Inc.
McIntyre, Ken
SAPPI Fine Paper
McKee, Randy
McMillan, Katharine
Randy McKee
Trucking, Inc
None given.
McMillin, Tom
None given.
McPhetridge, Mary
Ashland Area
Chamber of
Commerce
None given.
McVoy, Kirk
Medford Area Chamber of
Commerce
Meeker, James
Medford Area
Chamber of
Commerce
Northland College
Menke, Bill
National Park Service
Meyer Buzz
High Point Chapter
Meyer, Bob
Millard Jr., Bob
Taylor Co.
Snowmobile Assn.
Midwest Forest
Products
None given.
Miller, Agnes
None given.
Mineau, Louis
None given.
Mladenoff, Dave
Department of
Forestry, Univ. of
Wisconsin
None given.
Midwest Forest Products
Mollen, David
13394 W. Trepania Rd.,
Bldg 1
Hayward, WI 54843-2186
715-634-0102
Public notice, mail
survey
2 Andrew Way
Madison, WI 53714
PO Box 67,
418 Little Pines Road
Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538
715-588-9165
HC 1, Box 164
Florence, WI 54121
15835 Hatchery Road
Pelkie, MI 49958
906-334-2735
18909 69th Avenue
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
701 S. Park Ave
Crandon, WI 54520
RR2 Box 21
Kellogg, MN 55945
Route 2 Box 21
Kellogg, MN 55945
PO Box 746
Ashland, WI 54806
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
1406 W. Skyline Dr.
Madison, WI 53705
104 E. Perkins
Medford, WI 54451
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
1411 Ellis Ave.
Ashland, WI 54806
700 Rayovac Dr., Suite 100
Madison, WI 53711
530 Gibson St.
Medford, WI 54451
W4700 Fawn Ave.
Westboro, WI 54490
15954 Rivers Edge Drive
Hayward, WI 54843
13304 South Green Lake
Lane Mountain, WI 54542
PO Box 16
Long Lake, WI 54542
1428 Buffalo Street
Green Bay, WI 54313-5712
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
8589 W State Hwy 70
Saint Germain, WI 54558
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 178 of 200
Mongin, Paul
Monroe Co. Forest
Administrator
Montano, Melonee
Wisconsin OffHighway Vehicle
Assn., Trout Unlimited
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Moore, J Terry
Environmental
Programs Manager,
Red Cliff Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
None given.
Morales, Amy
SAPPI Fine Paper
Mouw, Gordy
Stora Enso North
America
Mrotek, Don
Murn & Martin S.C.
Sawyer Co.
Snowmobile and ATV
Alliance
Great Lakes Natural
Resources
Murn & Martin S.C.
Murn, Thomas
SAPPI Fine Paper
Murto, Robert
None given.
Myere, Bob
Myhre, John
None given.
None given.
Nagel Lumber Company
Nagel Lumber
Company
Barron County Forest
Administrator
Muller, Susan
Nedland, Jack
Nemec, Jim
Noll, Mark
Chequamegon ATV
Club
None given.
1151 Delray Dr.
Green Bay, WI 54304
920-499-7468
14307 County Hwy. B
Box 21A
Sparta, WI 54656
608-269-8738
wbangsbert@co.monroe.
wi.us
88385 Pike Road, Hwy. 13
Bayfield, WI 54814
715-779-3650
Public notice, mail
survey
731 Birch St.
Rhinelander, WI 54501
jtmoore@frontier.net
15386 West Williams Road
Hayward, WI 54843
P.O. Box 8050
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
54495-8050
Gordon.Mouw@storaenso
.com
224 Kansas Ave.
Hayward, WI 54843
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
506 E Liberty
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-221
W229N1792 Amber Lane
Waukesha, WI 53186
P.O. Box 504
Cloquet, MN 55720
Route 1 Box 152
Drummond, WI 54832
indy199961@hotmail.com
7595 Pine Point Road
Hayward, WI 54843
Box 209
Land O’Lakes, WI 54520
127 South 4th Street
Barron, WI 54812
715-537-6295
bcforest@chibardum.net
jack.nedland@co.barron.
wi.us
PO Box 67
Ashland, WI 54806
S1917 Buena Vista Rd.
Alma, WI 54610
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 179 of 200
Nolta, Tom
T.F.S. (Timberland
Forestry Services)
North Country Lumber Inc.
North Country Lumber
Inc.
Northwest Hardwoods,
Inc.
Northwoods Forestry,
Inc.
Northwest Hardwoods, Inc.
Northwoods Forestry, Inc.
NRG Ducaine Logging, Inc.
Nyberg, Gerald
NRG Ducaine Logging,
Inc.
None given.
Oberstar, David
None given.
Oconto Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Okraszewski, Jim
NewPage Corporation
Oneida Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Oneida County Board
Oneida County Board
Page, Henry
None given.
Palmetto Forestry Services,
LLC
Palmetto Forestry
Services, LLC
Parker, Jeff
None given.
Paulson, Neil
None given.
Pecore, Marshal
Forest Manager,
Menominee Tribal
Enterprises
Penegor Forestry
Services
Penegor, John
Pertile, Erica
None given.
Peters, Carl
Carl Peters Timber
Products
E6971 Wildwood Rd.
Munising, MI 49862
906-387-4350
906-250-7197
PO Box 499
Mellen, WI 54546
PO Box 131
Dorchester, WI 54425
PO Box 250
Antigo, WI 54409
715-882-5709
N8150 Smith Creek Road
Crivitz, WI 54114
910 Dakota Avenue
Gladstone, MI 49837
906-428-4389
700 Lonsdale Bldg.
Duluth, MN 55802
301 Washington Street
Oconto, WI 54153
920-834-6827
skaliro@co.oconto.wi.us
906-233-2150
jdo@newpagecorp.com
Courthouse, P.O. Box 400
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-369-6140
jbilogan@co.oneida.wi.us
PO Box 400
Rhinelander, WI 54501
915 Longwood Drive Lake
Forest, IL 60045
6416 Thurgood Marshall
Hwy.
Kingstree, SC 29556
843-382-9524
PO Box 313
Brimley, MI 49715
PO Box 36
Drummond, WI 54832
PO Box 670
Keshena, WI 54135
715-799-3896
6117 Woodland P.1 Avenue
Gladstone, MI 49837
906-235-0053
7335 Russell Road
Three Lakes, WI 54562
715-546-3108
58560 Argo Rd
Mason, WI 54856
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, stakeholder
meeting, telephone
contact
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 180 of 200
Peters, Paul
Paul Peters Logging
Peters, Terrence
Peters Logging
Petersen, Lowell
None given.
Peterson, Rachel
SAPPI Fine Paper
Peterson, Robert
Domtar Industries Inc.
Pielsticker, Bill
Trout Unlimited
Pierson, Darrell
Packaging Corporation
of America
None given.
Pilch, Laurie
Pingrey, Paul
Observer-Wis.
Department of Natural
Resources
Forestry Division
Plunkett, Jeff
Weyerhaeuser
Company
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Polk Co. Forest Administrator
Pope, Russell
None given.
Price Co. Forest Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Price Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
Price, Will
Price Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Observer-Pinchot
Institute for
Conservation
Professional Tree Forestry
Consolidated Services
Puhl, David
Professional Tree
Forestry Consolidated
Services
None given.
Purtell, Robert F
None given.
Radlinger, David
David Radlinger
Logging
28990 Peters Road
Mason, WI 54856
Route 1 Box 37 Mellen, WI
54546
tlplogging@baysat.net
986 Catfish Lake Road
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-7289
E 6950 Spruce Road
Bessemer, MI 49911
100 Wisconsin River Drive
Port Edwards, WI 54469
8045 Crystal Lake Rd.
Lodi, WI 53555-9539
608-592-4718
N9090 County Road E
Tomahawk, WI 54487
N9398 Old 13 Rd Phillips,
WI 54555
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
paul.pingrey@dnr.state.wi.us
200 North Grand Avenue
Rothschild, WI 54474-1197
100 Polk County Plaza,
Suite 40
Balsam Lake, WI 54810
715-485-9265
paulp@co.polk.wi.us
Box 7921
101 South Webster
Madison, WI 53707
104 South Eyder Avenue
Phillips, WI 54555
715-339-6371
pcforest@co.price.wi.us
PO Box 110
Phillips, WI 54555
willprice@pinchot.org
PO Box 60
Vanceboro, NC 28586-0060
252-244-2258
W7995 Walters Rd.
Mauston, WI 53948
3316 W Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208
14256 Radlinger Road
Butternut, WI 54514
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, opening
meeting, stakeholder
meeting, closing
meeting
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, opening
meeting, stakeholder
meeting, closing
meeting (by phone)
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 181 of 200
Read, Terry
UP Forest Resources
Co.
Reed, Jean
None given.
Reinhard, Kathy
Price County Tourism
Retzlaff, Merlin
None given.
Richard Good Logging
Richard Good Logging
Riegert, Michael J.
None given.
Riley, Andrew
Tree Tech
Ringer Bulldozing, Incorp.
RJY Services, Inc.
Ringer Bulldozing,
Incorp.
RJY Services, Inc.
Robers, Charles
The Hunt Club
Roberts, Bill
Northwoods Land
Management
Rodd, Jim
Domtar Industries Inc.
Rogers, Elizabeth
Roiger, Michael
Forest County
Potawatomi
Community
None given.
Ross, Samuel
None given.
Ruckheim, Walter
USDA – Forest Service
Rusfeldt, John
None given.
Rusk Co. Forest Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Sappi Fine Paper
Sappi Fine Paper
Sauer, Chuck
None given.
129 Bernhardt Road
Iron River, MI 49935
906-265-5170
8038 Ripco Road
Eagle River, WI 54521
126 Cherry St., Room 9
Phillips, WI 54555
4808 Mill Street
Laona, WI 54541
10699 W Twin Bay Road
Hayward, WI 54843
N763 Oriole Drive
Stetsonville, WI 54480
N10122 County Rd. F
Phillips, WI 54555
715-339-4074
N544 Cty G
Sheldon, WI 54766
1363 Kassuba Rd.
PO Box 1786
Gaylord, MI 49735
989-732-7092
6115 McHenry
Burlington, WI 53105
P.O. Box 195
Bessemer, MI 49911
906-663-6826
100 Wisconsin River Drive
Port Edwards, WI 54469
P.O. Box 340
Crandon, WI 54520
715-478-2903
N5085 Bens Lane
Medford, WI 54451
2419 Grove Avenue
Racine, WI 53405
68 South Stevens Street
Rhinelander, WI 54501
715-362-1329
PO Box 663
Iron River, WI 54847
311 Miner Avenue,
Suite 151
Ladysmith, WI 54848
715-532-2113
mailto:pteska@ruskcounty.
wi.us
20 North 22nd St
Cloquet, MN 55720
740 Squirrel Lane
Marathon, WI 54448
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, telephone
contact
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 182 of 200
Sawyer Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Schlobobaum, Steve
Schloer Logging
Asssitant to Regional
Forester, USDA Forest
Service
Schloer Logging
Schlosser Lumber Inc.
Schlosser Lumber Inc.
Schnorr, John
Schoettpelz, Jim
Wisconsin OffHighway Vehicle
Assn., Trout Unlimited
None given.
Schumann, William
None given.
Schutt, Marty
Schwecke, Pete
Environmental
Director, St. Croix
Chippewa Indians of
Wisconsin
Marion Plywood
Seefeld, James
None given.
Severt, Jane
Lincoln Co. Forest
Administrator
Shamco, Inc.
Shamco, Inc.
Sharnek, Brad
None given.
Sheeks, Steve
None given.
Shumilo, John G.
None given.
Simon, James B.
None given.
Slater, David F.
Smith, Allen
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
None given.
Smith, Dave
None given.
Public notice, mail
survey
Courthouse, P.O. Box 880
Hayward, WI 54843
715-634-4839
greg.peterson@sawyercounty
gov.org
USDA Forest Service
Office interaction
13876 Ash Lane
Butternut, WI 54514
HC 63 Box 36
Durand, WI 54736
N8163 Rolling Hills Dr.
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
1971 London Road
Green Bay, WI 54311
PO Box 249
213 K Manitou Rd.
Manitowish Waters, WI
54545
246663 Angeline Ave.
Webster, WI 54893-9246
715-342-2195x106
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
P.O. Box 497
Marion, WI 54950
W5756 Hites Lane
Medford, WI 54451
Courthouse Annex
1106 E. Eighth Street
Merrill, WI 54452
715-536-0327
bwengeler@co.lincoln.wi.us
jsevert@co.lincoln.wi.us
Box 436
Iron River, MI 49935
Route 1 Box 72
Laona, WI 54541
N58W24234 Clover Road
Sussex, WI 53089
1712 Robbie Lane Mt.
Prospect, IL 60056
91 South Reserve Avenue
Fond Du Lac, WI 54935
650 “A” Avenue
Gwinn, MI 49841
Box 33
Boulder Junction, WI 54512
1400 Chippewa Trail
Mosinee, WI 54455
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 183 of 200
Smith, Jerry
Smith, Norman and Sandra
THPO, Lac Courte
Oreilles Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
None given.
Socha, Greg
Soder, Eugene
None given.
None given.
Sohasky, Mike
None given.
Solheim, Stephen
None given.
Sommerfield, Skip
Wisconsin DNR
Souba, Fred
Stora Enso North
America
Soulier, Ervin
Spickerman, Landis
Natural Resource
Manager, Bad River
Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
None given.
Spickerman, Landis/Steven
None given.
Stern, Bill
None given.
Stibbe Excavating & Grading
Stibbe Excavating &
Grading
Stier, Jeff
Stoebe, Frederic
University of
Wisconsin, Madison,
Dept. of Forestry
None given.
Stoiber, Dave
Thilmany LLC
Stolze, George
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
Stone Creek
Contractors
Stone Creek Contractors
Stora Enso North America
Stroup, Dick and Nancy
Stora Enso North
America
Needlepoint Kennels
Suchan, Donald
None given.
13394 W. Trepania Rd.,
Bldg 1
Hayward, WI 54843-2186
715-634-8934
2057 E Anvil Lake Road
Eagle River, WI 54521
gsocha@paconserve.org
PO Box 519
Three Lakes, WI 54562
1633 Neva Road
Antigo, WI 54409
5138 Ridge Oak Dr.
Madison, WI 53704
875 4th Ave. South
Park Falls, WI 54552
P.O. Box 8050
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
54495-8050
PO Box 39,
100 Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-7103
Route 1, Box 283B
Highbridge, WI 54846
715-492-5969
RR 1 Box 283 B
Highbridge, WI 54846
1324 Williamson St. # 1
Madison, WI 53703
PO Box 351
Antigo, WI 54409
715-623-3914
120 Russell Labs,
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Route 1 Box 77
Drummond, WI 54832
P.O. Box 385
Waupaca, WI 54981
Box 98
Sagola, MI 49881
E1664 Canyon Creek Ln
Luxemburg, WI 54217-8278
920-845-2799
Po Box 8050,
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495
151 Needles Point Road
Evans City, PA 16035
engsettersrus@aol.com
13815 US Highway 10
Cato, WI 54206
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 184 of 200
Summitt Forests, Inc.
Summitt Forests, Inc.
Superior Wilderness Action
Network
Superior Wilderness
Action Network
Country Trail Assn.
Swank, Marty
Szarka, Fred
NPS NCTA Trail
Manager
Taylor Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Taylor County Board
Taylor County Board
The County Journal
The County Journal
The Trust for Public Land
The Trust for Public
Land
Thimm, Tom
Thompson, Martin
Tom Thimm Logging,
Inc.
None given.
Thompson, Robert
None given.
Thorne, Aaron
None given.
Thornton, Pat
Thuermann, Dennis
Bayfield County
Tourism Director
None given.
Timber Brokerage
Timber Brokerage
Timmerman, Joe
Midwest Forest
Products
Tormohlen, Dave
Town of Aurora
Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation
Town of Aurora
Town of Caswell
Town of Caswell
Town of Crescent
Town of Crescent
Town of Emery
Town of Emery
PMB 218
1257 Siskiyou Blvd
Ashland, OR 97520
541-535-8920
RR1, Box 53
Sandstone, MN 55072
North 808 14th Ave. West
Ashland, WI 54806
700 Rayovac Dr.,
Suite 100
Madison, WI 53711
224 South Second Street
Medford, WI 54451
715-748-1486
brad.ruesch@co.taylor.wi.us
224 South Second Street
Medford, WI 54451
PO Box 637
Washburn, WI 54891
2610 University Ave., Suite
30
St. Paul, MN 55114
71994 E Cayuga Rd
Mellen, WI 54546
539 Aberdeen Road
Frankfort, IL 60423
35 8th Avenue
Clayton, WI 54004
PO Box 160 St.
Germain, WI 54558
akthorne1@verizon.net
PO Box 832
Washburn, WI 54891
606 Oakwood Drive
Hartland, WI 53029
893 Gibbs City Road
Iron River, MI 49935
15954 Rivers Edge Drive,
Suite 201
Hayward, WI 54843
jtimmerman@midwestforest
products.com
P.O. Box 190
Tomahawk, WI 54487
RR 1 Box 105
Niagara, WI 54151
RR 2 Box 1405
Cavour, WI 54511
6695 Holly Drive
Rhinelander, WI 54501
W3601 Maple Drive
Phillips, WI 54555
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 185 of 200
Town of Gillett
Town of Gillett
Town of Hill
Town of Hill
Town of Kennan
Town of Kennan
Town of Laona
Town of Laona
Town of Minocqua
None given.
Town of Woodruff
None given.
Trepania, Al
Lac Courte Oreilles
Truckey, Roger
None given.
Tucker, Wesley
None given.
Tutor, Doug
Uihlein, George
Forestry Aide, Bad
River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
US Department of
Interior
None given.
University of Wisconsin, Eau
Claire
University of
Wisconsin, Eau Claire
University of Wisconsin,
Superior
USDA Forest Service - Rocky
Mountain Region
University of
Wisconsin, Superior
USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Region
None given.
U.S. Department of Interior
Van Hollen, John
Van Zile, Tina
Vernon Co. Forester/Parks
Administrator
Environmental
Director, Sokoagon
Chippewa Community,
Mole Lake Chippewa
Tribe
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Vetterneck, David
None given.
Vilas Co. Forest Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Vissering, Dennis
None given
RR 2 Box 270
Cecil, WI 54124
W2791 Risberg Road
Ogema, WI 54459
N2580 County Road N
Kennan, WI 54537
RR 1 Box 362
Laona, WI 54541
PO Box 168
Minocqua, WI 54548
PO Box 560
Woodruff, WI 54568
RR 2 Box 2700
Hayward, WI 54843
3359 Haven Place
Green Bay, WI 54313
3977 Elliot Road
Wabeno, WI 54566
PO Box 39,
100 Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-7123
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
231 West Wisconsin
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Box 4004
105 Garfield Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54702
P.O. Box 2000
Superior, WI 54880
P.O. Box 25127
Lakewood, CO 80225
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Box 256C, Route 2
Mason, WI 54856
3051 Sand Lake Road
Crandon, WI 54520
715-478-7605
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
220 Airport Avenue
Viroqua, WI 54665
608-637-5485
PO Box 124 Lac Du
Flambeau, WI 54538
330 Court Street
Eagle River, WI 54521
715-479-5160
vcfor@co.vilas.wi.us
dvissering@portup.com
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Page 186 of 200
Vozka, Wiitala and Nancy
None given.
Vybiral, Ray
None given.
Wabeno Public Library
Wabeno Public Library
Waelchil, Allan
Walker, Mark
Wis. Consulting
Foresters
None given.
Waller, Dr. Donald M.
Dept. of Botany
Wallow, Donald
None given.
Warren, Douglas
None given.
Washburn Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Watruba, Bruce
None given.
Wawronowicz, Larry
Wedemayer, Edward
Natural Resource
Director, Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa
Indians
None given.
Welch, Marge
Midwest Field Director
Wenk Richard
None given.
Wetzel, Alan
Wick, Tony
USDA Forest Service
None given.
Wiitala Vozka Logging
Wiitala Vozka Logging
Wild Rivers Forestry Inc.
Wilhelm, Willard
Wild Rivers Forestry
Inc.
None given.
Williams Forestry &
Associate
Williams Forestry &
Associate
W7978 City Hwy D
Westboro, WI 54490
715-427-3481
11726 Highbank Lane
Suring, WI 54174
vybiral@centurytel.net
P.O. Box 340
Wabeno, WI 54566
W7251 Belle Plaine Avenue
Shawano, WI 54166
Suite 211, Old Fort Square
211 North Broadway
Green Bay, WI 54303-2757
430 Lincoln Drive
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 263-2042
dmwaller@wisc.edu
Route 1 Box 217
Glidden, WI 54527
8403 Van Dornick Road
Pulaski, WI 54162
850 W. Beaver Brook
Avenue Ste 4
Spooner, WI 54801
715-635-4490
mlpeters@co.washburn.wi.us
17575 Pine Acres Lane
Townsend, WI 54175
PO Box 67,
418 Little Pines Road
Lac du Flambeau, WI 5453
715-588-3303
Public notice, mail
survey
623 Decker Drive West
Bend, WI 53095
PO Box 1417
Madison, TN 37116
4118 Liberty Court
Eau Claire, WI 54703
awetzel@fs.fed.us
N92w25091 Blue Heron
Road Sussex, WI 53089
W7978 County Road D
Westboro, WI 54490
W6666 Judy Street
Wausaukee, WI 54177
PO Box 813
Ashland, WI 54806
PO Box 1663
Bloomington, IL 61702-1663
309-828-2318
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey, e-mail inquiry,
telephone interview
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 187 of 200
Wilson, Lynn
Plum Creek Timber
Wisconsin Woodland
Owners Assn.
Wissink, Rich
Wisconsin Woodland
Owners Assn.
None given.
Wolslegel, Thomas
None given.
Wood Co. Forest
Administrator
Wisconsin County
Forest Administrators
Woodford, Jim
Ecologist, Bureau of
Endangered Resources
Wisconsin Dept. of
Natural Resources
Wisconsin Dept. of
Natural Resources
Xjuneau County Forest
Administrator
None given.
Wydeven, Adrian
Xjuneau County Forest
Administrator
Yost, Gaylord
Zastrow, Darrell
Zavada, Paul
Wis. Department of
Natural Resources
Forestry Division
None given.
Zelinski Bros.
Zelinski Bros.
Zichella, Carl
None given
Zimmer, Gary
Ruffed Grouse Society
Zimmerman, Larry
None given.
Zorn, James
Policy Analyst I, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission
Executive
Administrator, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission
Zorn, Jim
1411 North 4th Street,
Ste. 104
Tomahawk, WI 54487-2154
PO Box 285
Stevens Point, WI 54481
704 Surrey Lane
Merrill, WI 54452-3327
645 East Edgewood Drive
Appleton, WI 54915
Courthouse P.O. Box 8095
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
54495-8095
715-421-8549
fschubert@co.wood.wi.us
Rhinelander, WI 54501
(715) 365-8856
james.woodford@wisconsin.
gov
PO Box 220
Park Falls, WI 54552
250 Oak Street
Mautson, WI 53948-1345
PO Box 1013
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1013
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
PO Box 341
Truro, MA 02666
24125 Beaver Station Rd.
Watersmeet, MI 49969
906-358-4676
214 N. Henry St., Suite 200
Madison, WI 53703
PO Box 116
Laona, WI 54541
W7320 County D
Westboro, WI 54490
PO Box 9, Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-6619, ext. 101
PO Box 9, Maple Lane
Odanah, WI 54861
715-682-6619, ext. 148
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
E-mail contact
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Public notice, mail
survey
Page 188 of 200
APPENDIX VIII: Peer review addenda (confidential)
CNNF Peer Review #1
Peer Reviewer: Lee Frelich
Reviewer Specialization: Forest Ecology
Test Evaluation Report Quality:
How would your rate the overall quality of the test evaluation report?
High
Acceptable
Poor
Do team observations and findings clearly support the determination of conformance reached?
Yes
No
Comments: Yes, I studied the stakeholder comments and CNNF responses to
the first draft and think the team did a good job of balancing stakeholders concerns, CNNF
concerns, and FSC standards in the final list of CARs and Observations.
Areas for improvement:
Editing/Formatting:
Comments: Page 84 references Appalachia Region under applicability to
old growth sectionb--should propbably reference Lake States
SmartWood Response: The Applicability Note including reference to the Appalachia Region was
mistakenly included in the CNNF report and has now been removed.
Lack of Clarity:
Technical Analysis:
Comments:
Comments:
(reference weak sections)
Information lacking:
Please indicate areas: Page 28 when describing forest types in 4th
paragraph under ecological context you should probably also include white/red pine on the list of
major forest types.
SmartWood Response: Approximate acreage figures for red pine and white pine (combined) have
been included in the section on ecological context as suggested by the peer reviewer. The source
of this information is: North Central Forest Experiment Station – U.S. Forest Service, Resource
Bulletin NC-194, The Forest Resources of Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, published in
1998.
Other comments:
Acreage totals are confusing--see comment table
SmartWood Response: See response in comment table.
Test Evaluation Process:
Based upon the information in the test evaluation report, do you have any comments on the test evaluation
process (i.e. team composition, field time, stakeholder consultation) and the adequacy of fieldwork as the
basis for making the determination of conformance?
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 189 of 200
Comments: They really did a good (and massive) job of assembling and analyzing information and
stakeholder comments
Report Conclusions:
Is the determination of conformance recommendation of the team justified by the reports observations and
No
If no, explain?
findings? Yes
Do you agree with determination of conformance recommendation of the team? Yes
reasons why?
No
If no, state
Peer Reviewer Comments Table:
Report
section
Public
summary,
page 33
(Appendix II,
Silvicultural
Systems)
9.3a, pages
128-129
Pages 30-32,
76
Issue: Disagreement or suggested
action
Is it really true that all uneven-aged
management is individual tree selection-with no group selection? Variability in gap
sizes, even within one forest type such as
northern hardwoods, is one of the primary
ways to insure diversity in regeneration
and ecological processes. I am not sure
exactly where this should be mentioned
within the assessment, but it seems
rather critical to hardwood forest
management, and it should be mentioned
somewhere.
Please clarify whether CNNF allows
management activities such as removal
of invasive species in old growth, HCVF,
and wilderness areas.
I found it hard to understand the acreage
totals in the report. For example on page
32, an acreage of 184,600 is given for
R,T and E ecosystems, whereas on page
76, 152,000 is listed. Are these different
categories? Do they include wilderness
areas? What about the 1.522 million acre
total versus the 1.318 acreage in the
scope of evaluation?
SW Response
CNNF uneven-aged management
activities are mostly based on gapphase silviculture. Timber harvesting
under these prescriptions includes both
single tree selection and small group
selections. The text in the public
summary has been modified to reflect
this correction.
CNNF does allow control of invasive
species in old growth, HCVF, wilderness
areas and other special management
areas. The findings of Indicator 9.3.a
have been appropriately modified.
The CNNF is comprised of a total of
1,522,485 acres in all areas. Of this
total, 1,318,863 acres are forested. The
acreage reference of 152,000 acres on
page 76 (AC 6.1.1) is incorrect and has
been changed to 184,600, consistent
with the information provided by CNNF
in Appendix I on page 32
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 190 of 200
CNNF Peer Review #2
Peer Reviewer: Don Floyd
Reviewer Specialization: Forest Policy & Social Science
Test Evaluation Report Quality:
How would your rate the overall quality of the test evaluation report?
High
Acceptable
Poor
Do team observations and findings clearly support the determination of conformance reached?
Yes
No
Comments: Mostly
Areas for improvement:
Editing/Formatting:
Comments: several grammatical problems
SmartWood Response: The report has been reviewed several times for spelling and grammatical
errors, and again in response to the peer reviewer comments.
Lack of Clarity:
Comments: a good bit of redundancy
SmartWood Response: The SmartWood auditors Findings are associated with the Indicators
provided in the FSC Lake States Region standard, via the FSC US Federal Lands Policy
(Department of Defense/Department of Energy Indicators) and the Additional Considerations.
SmartWood agrees that there is a level redundancy within some elements of the standards.
Technical Analysis:
Comments: stakeholder participation section
SmartWood Response: Numerous modifications have been made to the stakeholder consultation
section (Section 2.6) and the stakeholder consultation comment table (Section 3.1) in response to
the peer reviewer’s comments. These changes are detailed below
Information lacking:
Please indicate areas:
Other comments: It is not clear to me which of the standards are the additions and which are part
of the normal process. This should be made clear in the text.
SmartWood Response: Additional text has been added to the end of the last paragraph in Section
2.1 of the report in an effort to clarify which Indicators are associated with the FSC Lake States
standards, which Indicators are attributed to the FSC US Federal Lands Policy and which were
developed specifically for this project as Additional Considerations. Additional text was also added
to the third paragraph to more clearly describe the process of developing Additional Considerations
for the CNNF, including the fact that the 17 Additional Considerations developed for the ANF test
evaluation were used as the basis for the 19 Additional Considerations developed for the CNNF test
evaluation.
Test Evaluation Process:
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 191 of 200
Based upon the information in the test evaluation report, do you have any comments on the assessment
process (i.e. team composition, field time, stakeholder consultation) and the adequacy of fieldwork as the
basis for making the certification decision?
Comments: I have indicated some significant questions about the stakeholder participation process and the
reporting of the results
Report Conclusions:
Is the certification recommendation of the team justified by the reports observations and findings? Yes
If no, explain?
No
Do you agree with certification recommendation of the team? Yes
No
If no, state reasons why?
Peer Reviewer Comments Table:
Report
section
Section 2.1
Issue: Disagreement or suggested
action
I have two general observations that
discomfit me. The first is probably
beyond the scope of this report, but it
relates to the larger experiment of
certifying national forests. If the FSC
standard was not complete enough to
use in NF certification, what are the
implications of using it for other public
lands such as state forests where the
management regime is similar? More
specifically, it would be a good idea to
clearly indicate which part of the
standards are derived from regular
regional FSC guide, the DOD/DOE
guide and the “additional items.”
SW Response
The per reviewer raises an important point that
could be subject to further debate within the
broader stakeholder community should the
USDA Forest Service declare their intention to
pursue FSC certification on one or more
national forests. However, with respect to this
particular project, in keeping with the terms of
our contractual obligations to The Pinchot
Institute for Conservation, SmartWood was
obliged to develop Additional Considerations
while also integrating the FSC US DOD/DOE
Indicators into the test evaluation of the CNNF.
As stated in the report, FSC certification is not a
potential outcome of this test evaluation of
CNNF. The FSC US policy on certification of
federal lands has established three thresholds
that must be met before certification proceeds
on any given federal ownership in the U.S.
They are:
1) Willing landowner participation in the
certification process.
2) Public consensus concerning timber
harvesting and other relevant, major
resource management practices and uses
that may be affecting the forest in question.
3) Existence of national-level indicators that
address the special resource management,
legal, technical, procedural, and
governance issues surrounding the federal
ownership type in question.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 192 of 200
Formal determination of whether the three
thresholds are met for any federal lands to be
eligible for FSC certification will be made by the
FSC US Board of Directors.
In a statement issued in February 2003, the
FSC-U.S Board of Directors expressed that
federal forest ownerships in the U.S. do not
currently meet the three sets of threshold
standards of the FSC-U.S. Federal Lands Policy
The FSC US notes that federal lands that are
currently FSC certified (DOD/DOE installations
and Marsh Billings Rockefeller National park)
are considered exceptions to the above
statement. In order to address the third
threshold (above), FSC US has issued special
indicators for certification of DOD/DOE
installations. Currently, these are the only
special indicators developed for the evaluation
of federal lands in the U.S.
To the extent feasible given the limited scope of
the project, The Pinchot Institute requested that
SmartWood develop Additional Considerations
to somewhat emulate this process of developing
national level indicators for national forests as
required in the third threshold of the FSC US
Federal Lands Policy.
Section 2.6
Second, the stakeholder involvement
responses were very low. Reporting
percentages in a case like this often
suggests a higher clarity than is
appropriate. I think this section of the
report should be changed by
reporting the raw numbers. The
response results are very limiting and
it would be difficult to draw any
reliable conclusions based on so few
responses. Unfortunately this calls
into question the utility of this entire
section. I think that there is very little
that the certification team can say
with confidence about how the
general public (or even the informed
public) regards the issues on the
forest based on the surveys.
With respect to the last issue raised by the peer
reviewer regarding the need for increased
clarity as to the origin of the standards, please
see the SmartWood Response to this issue
under the heading “Areas for Improvement”
associated with “Assessment Report Quality”.
SmartWood concurs with the peer reviewer that
a 16% response rate to the survey
questionnaire is relatively low, and that the
responses of 150 stakeholders can not be
considered as representative of “public opinion”
on the specific issues addressed in the surveys,
or on the management of the CNNF.
SmartWood does not suggest that these
comments should be considered representative
of the broader public opinion on CNNF forest
management or of any specific issue.
Statements made, for example, in section 3.1
are representative only of the 150 stakeholders
surveyed and of stakeholders interviewed or
providing input through other venues.
Survey results were used as supplemental
information, to identify potential issues that may
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 193 of 200
Response rates this low beg
alternative strategies. Holding a
public meeting on Halloween night
pretty much guarantees the public
won’t be there.
not have otherwise been discovered, or to
reinforce observations made by the auditors
through other avenues of evidence gathering.
As described in Section 2.6 of the test
evaluation report: “Stakeholder inputs were
used as supporting evidence or verification
during the evaluation process, to provide the
evaluation team with additional perspectives on
the CNNF forest management, and to point
toward issues that need further exploration.”
The stakeholder consultation measures
employed by SmartWood in the CNNF test
evaluation are consistent with the established
standards of major third party forest certification
programs (e.g. FSC Standard for Stakeholder
Consultation for Forest Evaluation, FSC STD 20
006). The purpose of stakeholder consultation
measures undertaken within the context of third
party forest auditing is to evaluate conformance
to the standards. As such, our intent was
decidedly not to define public opinion on CNNF
forest management issues, but rather to
enhance the auditing process. Text has been
added to Section 2.6 and Section 3.1 to clarify
the intent of the survey questionnaire and how
the results were interpreted and used for the
purposes of this test evaluation.
To this end, our stakeholder consultation
measures were appropriate, relevant, and
useful in aiding the auditors to make credible
judgments on conformance to the standards
used in the test evaluation. SmartWood
auditors contacted a diverse range of
stakeholders with respect to geographic context
(national, regional, local) as well as perspective
(local residents, public land management
agencies, regulatory agencies, tribal concerns,
environmental organizations, forest workers,
employees, forest users, academics).
Additionally, a variety of techniques were used
to facilitate stakeholder input including: posting
and distribution of a public notice announcing
the test evaluation and providing contact
information for providing comment; two public
meetings publicly advertised in the local media;
individual interviews; and distribution by mail of
a survey questionnaire.
SmartWood concurs that alternative strategies
for stakeholder consultation – particularly for
local stakeholders - should be considered for
future projects of this size. SmartWood also
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 194 of 200
concurs that holding a public meeting on
Halloween is far from optimal; however, the
audit team was constrained by both budget and
schedule and had limited options. The first
meeting, held two days earlier, was also very
poorly attended (1 person), suggesting that
even if the second meeting were held on a
different day (other than Halloween),
attendance may not have been much better. In
any event, SmartWood is always seeking to
improve on our stakeholder consultation
measures, and the peer reviewer’s comments
are appreciated.
Also of note is that the FSC Lake States
Standards include numerous Criteria and
Indicators that require forest management
operations to conduct stakeholder consultation.
These standards are most demanding for public
agencies. CNNF has conducted extensive
stakeholder consultation activities as a core
element of their management responsibilities.
SmartWood reviewed and evaluated the
effectiveness of these activities during the
course of conducting this test evaluation (e.g.,
Criteria 2.2, 3.3, 4.4 and 8.2.d).
Section 2.6
Page: 195
How were instrument reliability and
validity determined? This should be
reported.
Section 2.6
Page: 195
I’ve read this section several times
and find it confusing. My reading
suggests that surveys were sent to
500 stakeholders+264 employees +
183 Plan commenter’s = 947 surveys.
The response rate was 16%. You
should report the N for the total
number of usable surveys which
appears to be in the 150 range. This
suggests a serious problem: I don’t
think one can say much about what
the “public” thinks about CNNF
management based on such low
results. In the table that follows, I
think it would be better to report raw
With respect to reporting percentages rather
than raw numbers, the report has been modified
in several sections to include either raw
numbers, or the reported percentage is
accompanied by the actual number for total
surveys returned to provide context.
Survey instrument reliability and validity were
not calculated. This survey was conducted as
an alternative method for facilitating stakeholder
participation, not as a formal, scientific
measurement of public opinion.
The text has been modified to clarify the
number of survey questionnaires mailed and the
number of completed surveys received. A total
of 481 (~ 500) surveys were mailed to external
stakeholders (excluding the 264 CNNF
employees). A total of 33 surveys were
returned undeliverable, and a total of 115
usable (completed) surveys were returned. By
adding the 264 CNNF employee stakeholders to
the 481 external stakeholders, and then
subtracting 33 returned undeliverable, the total
number of surveys delivered equals 712. By
dividing the 115 returned surveys by the 712
delivered, we calculated a return rate of 16.2%.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 195 of 200
numbers rather than percentages.
Section 3.1,
Principle 1
Page: 196
Rather than report percentages, it
would be more revealing to report
numbers—X out of X reported
satisfied. Were categories collapsed?
Section 3.1,
Principle 2
This is a very small n. I think you
should report the raw numbers.
Section 3.1
I’m not certain how significant the
decimals are here.
The text for Stakeholder Comment #1 under
Principle 1 has been modified to include the
total number of respondents to provide context
to the figure of 86% of respondents. Text was
also modified to clarify that survey responses
were used only as supporting information, not
exclusively as conclusive statements about
stakeholder opinion.
All categories were collapsed; all stakeholders
were considered together in a single population
of respondents, including CNNF employees.
The text for Stakeholder Comment #1 under
Principle 2 has been modified to include the
total number of respondents to provide context
to the figure of 2/3rds of respondents. Similar
modifications have been made throughout the
Stakeholder Comment table.
Survey results were reported to the nearest
tenth. SmartWood agrees that rounding to the
nearest whole number would be adequate for
the purposes of this report. All survey results
posted in the Stakeholder table in Section 3.1 of
the report have been rounded to the nearest
whole number.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 196 of 200
APPENDIX IX: SmartWood Additional Considerations
A total of 19 Additional Considerations have been developed through a process that began with the adoption
of 17 Additional Considerations used in June 2006 for the test evaluation of the Allegheny National Forest
(ANF) in Pennsylvania. An expert panel of six regional resource professionals was asked to provide
comment on the 17 draft Additional Considerations, and also to identify any existing gaps in the standards
relative to the unique aspects of the forest management of the CNNF. The revised draft CNNF Additional
Considerations were then provided to a broader group of targeted stakeholders in October 2006.
Stakeholders were asked through a questionnaire to first identify key issues relating to the management of
the CNNF, and then to provide input on the applicability and adequacy of the FSC standards to address any
considerations that are unique to the National Forest System. These special concerns relate to perceived
limitations of the FSC standards [FSC Lake States and Central Hardwood Region Standards and FSC
Department of Defense (DOD)/Department of Energy (DOE) standards] for evaluating CNNF forest
management operations. SmartWood compiled all input received as described above and evaluated these
special concerns to determine whether they should be used as Additional Considerations for the CNNF.
Draft Additional Considerations were then subjected to an internal review by SmartWood staff and the
SmartWood auditors. As a result of this cumulative process, 10 Draft (ANF) Additional Considerations were
modified, one was deleted and three new Additional Considerations were identified resulting in 19 CNNF
Additional Considerations.
The resulting Additional Considerations have been incorporated into the Test Evaluation of the CNNF.
SmartWood/PwC will evaluate CNNF’s performance against these Additional Considerations in a manner
consistent with the auditing protocol employed for all other indicators included in the Test Evaluation with the
exception that Corrective Action Requests have not been issued for Additional Considerations..
Additional Considerations are also integrated within Appendix III: Test Evaluation Conformance Checklist.
Within Appendix III, the Additional Considerations are located beneath the corresponding Criterion in the
FSC Standard. Additional Considerations are numbered such that they identify the corresponding Criterion
in the FSC Standard (e.g. AC 1.1.2 is the second Additional Consideration associated with FSC Criterion
1.1).
Summary of CNNF Additional Considerations
AC 1.1.1. By policy and action, managers of National Forests shall demonstrate compliance with applicable
federal laws and administrative requirements (e.g. NEPA, Roadless Area Conservation Rule and associated
State Petitioning Rule, ESA, Clean Water Act, NFMA, MUSYA, The Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, Organic Act, CFR, Title 7, applicable sections of the US Code, the Forest Service Manual, and Forest
Service Handbooks).
AC 1.1.2. Managers of National Forests shall comply with state, county, local and municipal laws except
where federal law preempts state, county and local laws. When federal laws preempt compliance with those
of other jurisdictions, corresponding statutes or regulations shall be specifically referenced and described.
AC 3.2.1. Solicitation of tribal collaboration is tailored to incorporate cultural sensitivity and awareness and
will be undertaken with a commitment to honor government to government relationships.
For example:
ƒ One or more employees are formally designated as liaison to tribes.
ƒ Employees that formally interact with tribes attend cultural and sensitivity training with affected tribes.
ƒ Collaboration with tribes involves appropriate levels of commitment and participation from leadership
within the National Forest.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 197 of 200
AC 3.2.2. Consultation techniques used for soliciting tribal input are adapted as necessary to achieve
effective communication and collaboration, and will include both written and verbal correspondence.
For example:
ƒ Current lists of appropriate contact persons are maintained for each affected tribe according to subject
area and level of communication (e.g. written notice v. verbal contact).
ƒ Sponsor and participate in forums for exchange of information and perspectives with tribal resource
managers on issues pertinent to the management of national forests and surrounding landscapes.
AC 4.1.1. A comprehensive listing of all applicable laws, regulations and administrative requirements and
their applicability to USFS forest management shall be maintained with listed documents made accessible to
all employees.
AC 4.1.2. Migrant worker conditions (including transit to and from work sites) are monitored by both
contractors and Forest Service personnel for compliance with USFS policies and contract specifications,
applicable labor laws and other associated regulations.
AC 6.1.1. Managers of National Forests use available science and information to prepare a written
description of the range and variation in historical forest conditions, spatial patterns and disturbance regimes
(reference variation).
For example:
ƒ Description of the intensity, distribution, frequency, size, resulting landscape patterns, and residual stand
structures of the major disturbance regimes.
ƒ Description of the reference variation of estimated composition of forest cover types, typical age class
distribution, and estimated stand structures.
ƒ Existing tools (e.g. LANDFIRE program) are considered when defining historical landscape conditions.
AC 6.1.2. The description of the reference variation of forest conditions is made available for public review
and comment prior to its use in management decisions.
AC 6.1.3. Current forest conditions are compared at the landscape scale with the reference variation of
forest conditions. Measures of current forest condition include, but are not limited to:
ƒ Area, composition (e.g., species and age class distribution) and spatial representation of ecological
types including old growth and late seral forests;
ƒ Composition and distribution of habitat-related structural elements (e.g. snags, den trees, mast trees,
coarse woody debris, thermal and hiding cover).
ƒ Climate trends and associated effects on assemblages of flora and fauna.
AC 6.1.4. The effects of national forest management activities on neighboring lands, as well as the effects of
activities in surrounding lands on national forests, are included in the scope of environmental impact
assessments on National Forests.
AC 6.1.5: Intensive (e.g. results in significant alteration to the ecosystem) uses and forest management
activities are allocated to those lands with relatively lower ecological sensitivity.
AC 6.2.1. A comprehensive list of the species of interest and species of concern (e.g., species with notable
conservation need) is maintained for each National Forest. Managers demonstrate through polices and
actions that said species, and the ecological systems that support the species, are duly considered in the
course of forest management.
AC 6.3.a.1: Climate trends and associated effects on assemblages of flora and fauna are considered when
developing strategies for retention of endemic species.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 198 of 200
AC 6.3.b.1. Forest management practices maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems and habitat features,
wetlands, and forested riparian areas (including springs, seeps, fens, and vernal pools).
AC 6.5.1. Where federal, state, county and local BMP guidelines, recommendations, and regulations
provide several options, the most effective measure for protecting the affected resource is applied.
AC 6.9.1. Managers of National Forests identify activities by which invasive exotic species (e.g. plants,
insects, animals) become established. Control mechanisms, including preventative strategies, are
implemented for high risk activities associated with Forest Service management responsibilities.
AC 7.1.a.1. Provisions for outdoor recreation are integrated with other uses and appropriately incorporated
into management objectives and planning documents.
AC 9.1.1. By policy and action, managers of National Forests shall demonstrate compliance with Section
2(c) of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in the course of identifying and designating
HCVF.
AC 9.1.2. National Forest managers review and consider use of existing HCVF planning tools (e.g.
Proforest HCVF Tool Kit, Canadian National Framework for HCVF) in the development of a process for
identifying HCVF.
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 199 of 200
APPENDIX X: FMO map
SmartWood Test Evaluation of Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest
Page 200 of 200